In short , even though Americans don’t really want a paternalistic government who tells them how to save, invest, or spend money, they do want a government that tries at least to reflect some of the best qualities in saving, investment, and spending possible.
Americans hate cynics who say one thing and do another. The end of irresponsible foreign or domestic policies of spending (i.e. as thought there-is-no-tomorrow) must end.
Likewise, the holes in the NAFTA contract are wide open for all Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians to see. These holes in global and regional development must be stopped and better plans and agreements carried out to make North America and South America a powerhouse and bulwark to other regions of the world that are growing together more and more economically
Better and fairer development, in terms of equality and egalitarianism, in both North and South American countries must be demanded and supported through U.S.A. and international initiatives at the World Bank and elsewhere.
In some cases, a keynsian model is helpful. In other cases, a more free market approach may prove beneficial. At other times, a protectionist approach will be permitted for a longer time frame. However, in all cases, the people involved should be asked first how they wish to develop and how they would like their moneys and resources spent.
This is why the United States must support more actively agricultural and labor movements around the globe as well as big businesses in all countries--from north to south.
The more players at the table, the more important and differing voices can be heard. This should be part and parcel of America’s calls for democracy around the world. It is also fully a cognitivist view with an eye to democratic access to government.
In short, the USA cannot simply continue to define democracy in terms of fair elections any more. We need to recognize the salience between elections and freedom of a people to express themselves and steer their government and society towards greater development and prosperity.
If American foreign policy and foreign aid policy had had this two handed approach (rather than a two-fisted militaristic approach), we would be able to withstand most changes in politics in other countries without ever feeling threatened in every single instance (e.g. by Chavezism in Latin America) by unfounded fears of long-term instability in various regions around the globe.
That is, American policy and practices would develop long-term stable friendships by being a stable friend and partner with other state’s peoples directing their own development.
WE COULD HAVE SEEN IT COMINGI’m not going to state that I saw 9-11 coming as it did.
I did have a feeling something like it would happen perhaps on a grander scale some time in the 21st Century. You see, I am a student of international development, world history, and global affairs. Once the fear of the nuclear showdown between the USSR and the USA had ended by the 1990s, the only major fear for our future would be between parts of the world with growing populations one day demanding a bigger part on the global stage.
The booming populations of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, India, and elsewhere made it inevitable that if development didn’t happen more equally soon, there would be a scramble for global resources and dominance of regions.
Sadly, as a lifelong educator, international developer, global traveler, and political scientist, I did note in the 1980s and 1990s that the USA’s approach towards the fastest growing populations on the planet were not heading towards building a more stable future for America and the OECD lands in the 21st Century.
One of the more detrimental facts of the great U.S.A. defense and security buildup of the 1980s was the inevitable crash it brought in the 1990s. All of these groupings from Nicaragua to Russia to Afghanistan and back to Yemen or Africa whom the Reagan and Bush Administration supported were suddenly out of work and without aid in developing their countries as the U.S. not only cut spending on the United Nations, but also cut USAID and other assistance around the globe.
In short, aspirations had risen only to see the U.S. bail out.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
