15 Cases: Constructive vs Destructive U.S. Foreign Policies
FEATURED RESEARCH PAPER, 12 Feb 2018
Johan Galtung – TRANSCEND Media Service
12 Feb 2018
The right column is sadly familiar; add more recent cases.
The left column also carries an element of sadness but nothing really radical; more like common sense that could easily be translated into political practice.
And yet it does not happen, to the detriment of the parties concerned: the USA and its relations to the world. USA wants to be feared but reaps hatred with right column politics. Does it want to be loved?
A theory is something tested along its edges (Quine); what you deduce from the theory–and to me the key “edge”–is its action-consequences.
|CONFLICTS||CONSTRUCTIVE, POSITIVE||DESTRUCTIVE, NEGATIVE|
|Encourage local saving banks
Publish M2 Check Fed Reserve
Tax speculation Drop bonuses
Outlaw basic needs speculation
Democratic control of central banks, state or private
Mixed world currency
|More F than Real growth
More money than value
Serving loans not people
Countries in debt bondage
Globalization through privatized central banks
US$ world reserve currency
|TERRORISM||Identify their just goals
Publish Atta Who did 9/11?
SOCO-Drones Covert war
|US-ISRAEL vs ARAB-MUSLIM
|Palestine recognized; and
A two states solution; and
A Middle East Community MEC Israel and 5 Arab neighbors
1967 borders with revisions; and
Org for Sec Coop West Asia
|Tail wagging dog:
Israel wagging USA;
AIPAC wagging Congress
Judeo-Christianity is anti-Islam.
Danger: Extreme US anti-semitism
|LIBYA||Self-determination for parts, Federalism with democracy||Continued anarchy
Unitary state illusion
|SYRIA||Self-determination for parts,
Federalism with democracy
|Attack; SCO response?
split Syria, rule parts
|IRAQ||Self-determination for parts,
(Con)federalism with democracy
Kurdish autonomous communities
|IRAN||Conciliation for 1953,
Middle East nuclear free zone
Cooperation on non-fossil energy
|Attack, SCO response?
No Iran nuclear arms
Controlling Iran oil?
|PAKISTAN||Pashtun autonomy, drop Durand Self-determination in Kashmir
|Building a Durand fence
SOCO-Drones Covert war
|AFGHANISTAN||A Central Asian Community
Federation Local autonomies
OIC-UNSC joint peacekeeping
Nonaligned, no bases
keeping troops, bases
|KOREA||Peace Treaty with N Korea
Normalization USA-N Korea
Korea as nuclear free zone
|Marginalizing N Korea
US-SK military exercises
|CHINA||Open high level dialogue,
Mutual learning in economics
Civil and economic rights
civil rights only
|JAPAN||Japan in NE Asian Community
Good relations to USA, APEC+
USA pulls out of Okinawa
Keeping Japan as client
|AFRICA||Welcome African Unity
Build with China E-W highway
|LATIN AMERICA||Welcome CELAC integration
|WORLD||All human rights conventions,
across state borders
Dialogue of civilizations
Stronger UN, with parliament
within state borders
Unitary state models
Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, dr hc mult, is founder of TRANSCEND International and rector of TRANSCEND Peace University. Prof. Galtung has published more than 1500 articles and book chapters, over 500 Editorials for TRANSCEND Media Service, and more than 170 books on peace and related issues, of which more than 40 have been translated to other languages, including 50 Years-100 Peace and Conflict Perspectives published by TRANSCEND University Press. More information about Prof. Galtung and all of his publications can be found at transcend.org/galtung.
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 12 Feb 2018.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: 15 Cases: Constructive vs Destructive U.S. Foreign Policies, is included. Thank you.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
3 Responses to “15 Cases: Constructive vs Destructive U.S. Foreign Policies”
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.