My foreign policy
Question 1
My foreign policy is based on the hierarchical model of foreign policy. General foreign beliefs and core values constrain my attitudes towards particular foreign policies. Many people who believe in the hierarchical model are consistent in the support for various foreign policies. Although sufficient information about foreign policies is not available, core values such as patriotism play lead to the consistency in believing in the system (Rathbun et al. 125). The support for the hierarchical model stems from the idea of prospect theory. I am always concerned with the expected utility relative to a reference point and not believing in absolute outcomes. For example, the intervention on the matters associated with another country should be done cautiously to avoid taking the country into inconceivable risks. Generally, I am sensitive while making decisions on issues that involve uncertainties although I my decisions are sometimes limited to the information that I can access (bounded rationality). However, the prospect theory goes hand in hand with the acceptance of risks. For example, the desire to enjoy benefits outdoes the need to avoid loss.
Intervention on another country’s issues takes into consideration several issues. Nations are expected to support each other in terms of challenges. However, not everyone has been in support of the intervention ability of countries. In the year 1789, a revolution happened in France, and intervention has since been blamed for the revolution (Edelstein, 100). My feeling of intervention, however, is that a government should be allowed to intervene on issues of other countries. However, intervention should be strategized to avoid taking the country into challenges such as economic difficulties.
Moreover, the reputation of the government on international markets should be protected by remaining positive on the issue of intervention. For example, developed countries should be willing to intervene when developing countries are facing challenges. Intervention should be based on the idea that the decision does not affect the lives of the citizens. Generally, the fundamental attribution bias theory can be used to explain why countries emphasize their desire to intervene at the expense of the recipient’s resistance.
The decision on whether to intervene in international matters takes into consideration several factors. Generally, intervention is not a bright idea since most previous interventions have not gone well for either party. The first factor to consider is whether either part will suffer from the decision instead of bolstering their attempts to address their challenges. For example, the intervening country could get into severe economic challenges intervening in an unworthy risk. Also, the country on the receiving end could suffer from privacy-related issues or even peace disruptions. Moreover, the intervention procedure should be in line with international expectations. Generally, the intervening country should not use superiority in the receiving country as that will only lead to resistance.
Most of the previous interventions have proved costly and unnecessary to both parties. First, the US has been involved in interventions that have cost countries their peace. For example, the intervention in Libya, where the then leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was killed, has put Libya in constant crisis in a bid to recover stability. Also, the intervention by the US in Syria has proved costly, with the relationship between the two nations remaining on rocks. The decisions have had an initial goal of creating stability in the receiving countries. The consequences have, however, become costly and worse than the previous situations. Also, support from the receiving countries has not been positive in most cases. Generally, intervention seems to be a forced ideology and should not bother the government.
Question 2
The consequences of the World Wars led to a need for creating an organization that would oversee order and peace in the world. The United Nations Organization was the immediate organization that promised to avoid instability in the world hence avoiding a repeat of another war. The United Nations Organization became the United Nations (UN) and existed to date. The UN is an Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) and is comprised of six organs. Five of the organs of the UN are based in Geneva, the headquarters of the UN, while the sixth organ is situated at the Hague, Holland. The five organs coming up to form the UN are: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, and the Secretary general. The sixth organ is referred to as the International Court of justice (ICJ) and is situated at the Hague in Holland (Baehr, Peter and Gordenker, n. p). All the six organs of the UN work collaboratively in a bid to achieve the primary goal of the organization of maintaining world peace and order. The UN has, however, failed most of its activities, leading to questions on its purpose.
The world is in constant crisis, and the UN has done little to address the different crises. First, the UN appears to lack the strength required to manage the situation in the world. The first weakness comes with the idea of membership. The UN does not have the power to force countries into becoming members. Therefore, most countries have taken several years before deciding on whether or not to join the UN. Therefore, the UN has been having challenges when addressing crises between members and non-members. However, the membership issue is not the only issue of concern on the functionality of the UN. Moreover, the formation of the UN can be associated with intergovernmentalism and the member countries have retained their sovereignty.
The formation of the UN was associated with hopes that the World would soon be free from crises. However, the test of time has proved the UN could be gradually heading for failure. A primary concern on the state of the UN is whether the UN could be taking the direction that was taken by the failed League of Nations. At the inception, the world was concerned with the increase in the rate of state-to-state conflicts. However, conflicts have taken a shift with groups coming into conflicts with states and threatening the stability in the world. The evidence of the failing UN is found in the way activities are carried out in the organization. For example, the Security Council has, for a long time, been known for transparency and organization. However, the council has changed significantly in the recent past. The council seems to be busy around the clock, with most of the meetings happening behind closed doors, which is a sign of a house in trouble.
Democracy is the primary ideology supported by the UN, although but nations have been struggling to maintain the idea of democracy. Also, the idea of one-state-one-vote remains an issue of concerning with the veto power still in application. A case in hand is Ukraine that has seen democracy facing significant hurdles with the UN remaining silent on several issues (D’Anieri, n. p). Also, the UN has remained silent on issues where nations take advantage of spillover to benefit from imposing costs to other nations. The fact that the UN has done little to save countries from their challenges is slowly tarnishing the reputation of the organization. For example, the crisis between Israel and Pakistan is taking long, and the UN is doing little to address the situation. Generally, the UN has failed in bringing its hopes into reality.
Works Cited
Baehr, Peter R., and Leon Gordenker. The United Nations in the 1990s. Springer, 2016.
D’Anieri, Paul. International politics: Power and purpose in global affairs. Cengage Learning, 2011.
Edelstein, Melvin. The French Revolution and the Birth of Electoral Democracy. Routledge, 2016.
Rathbun, Brian C., et al. “Taking foreign policy personally: Personal values and foreign policy attitudes.” International Studies Quarterly 60.1 (2016): 124-137.