I discuss politics with a large and varied group of people, some radical Communists to unabashed Fascists, to the main political parties. I have an idea on some foreign policy that, while a little loopy, might be a pretty good idea:
1) Slowly work out a lasting peace with Israel/Palestine, with the West Bank AS IS and Gaza be the "Republic of Palestine" or whatever the Palestinians wish to be. Also, allow Syria to have the Golan Heights, but have it as a demilitarized zone.
2) Allow a Kurdish Free state ONLY IN IRAQ. Place it under UN control until some permanent peace treaty can be written up between Kurdistan and it's neighbors.
4) Warm up with Russia. They are beginning to make a comeback, and would be valuable allies in the long run.
5) Open up talks with Cuba, warming up with them. It's been too long, I say let it be communist. 'Nuff said. Let's start trading.
6) Stop having bases in Europe except in Italy and Germany. These bases are strategic refuel/resupply points, but we only need one in each.
7) Help come up with some peace for the Kashmiris. They are divided between three states. Best bet, enforce the current lines into national boundaries, and make the subsequent Kashmiri territories into autonomous territories within India and Pakistan.
8) Take a stronger stance with North Korea, and reopen talks on reunification. The North is faltering and failing, and the South is an economic powerhouse.
9) Help Darfur and South Sudan by making them demilitarized autonomous regions.
10) Make sure Ethiopia stays in it's boundaries.
11) Strongly encourage cultural awareness and unity in Africa.
12) Come up with some sort of treaty on the Kurile Islands (a source of tension between Japan and Russia).
13) Stick to our guns with Taiwan/RoC, but not at hurting reputation with PRoC.
14) Advocate Albania joining NATO.
15) Make embargoes on Indonesia and Brazil until they greatly reduce their destruction of their respective rain forests.
What do you all think?
if it was as simple as just saying it, peace would have broken out long ago. Simply saying "Slowly work out a lasting peace with Israel/Palestine" is not a plan, mate.
I like a lot of the points you make. Point 2 would work, but probably better if you make it part of the federal state you advocate in point 3. I strongly agree with opening up trade with Cuba. Cuba is not a nation to be feared, but a nation that must be shown the value of a market economy that is run well. Given time, and trade dollars, Cuba can become a contributing member of the world economy. Eliminating some of our bases in Europe would be a great money-saving step for our government. With the rise of the EU military, it is time for the U.S. to leave the defense of Europe to the Europeans.
The Kashmir problem, while very heart-wrenching, is something the U.S. can not handle alone. In fact, the U.S. has almost no hope of being able to solve that situation without the help of the U.N., the European Union, or NATO. But if the next government were to put rising economic and political pressure on the parties involved, in a concerted effort with other major powers, then this situation may be diffused.
The best way to deal with the problems in Sudan would be military peacekeeping missions. While I know that these have not been necessarily successful in the past, I believe it may be different if a different sort of force is employed. I think it is important to bring the African Union and the European Union rapid response forces in on this problem. These forces are trained specifically for peacekeeping type missions, and unless some sort of force is exerted soon, Sudan may become the worst killing ground in African history.
Your point about Albania joining NATO is becoming moot. With the rise of the European Union, the role of NATO is becoming obsolete. In my opinion, NATO should be dissolved. It basically is a place where the United States dumps billions of dollars in cash and military equipment. Albania should, instead, be urged to join the European Union, which will pour many billions of dollars into rebuilding a crumbling infrastructure in that country that NATO would not be able to provide.
Your idea on embargoes against Indonesia and Brazil are good, but will be worthless if it is not a global effort. Look at the Cuban embargo. For 45 years there has been a trade embargo on Cuba by America, but still the country survives, because other countries trade with it. An embargo on Indonesia or Brazil would be even more fruitless than the Cuban Embargo, because the U.S. is not such a controlling influence on the Brazilian and Indonesian economies than it once was on the Cuban. While an embargo of these countries may not be a bad idea, it may be smarter to come up with some way to economically induce them to willingly counter their rain forest destruction.