Based on this admittedly brief excerpt, how would you characterize President Griswold’s perspective on international relations? Is he a realist? A liberal? An identity theorist?
Whenever a new party or individual comes to power, it is certain that a new course of action is chartered for the nation. But, at the same time it also needs to be emphasized that political diatribe during the run up to the elections doesn’t necessarily reflect in totality on the decisions after a new President takes over. Efforts are made by the new incumbent to study and analyze the situation from an insider’s perspective, before making sweeping public announcements. Decisions involving international relations are the one’s which need to be handled much more diplomatically and cautiously.
In this brief excerpt it appears as if President Griswold is still in an election campaign mood, trying to win over the confidence of voters. No head of state would dare to make an announcement involving waving of foreign debts, without actually having a detailed analysis of the country’s economic health. Therefore, with due respect to President Griswold’s noble intentions towards helping the poor nations, a decision involving waving off all international debts might actually result in undue burden on the US citizens in general. He is certainly not being realist and being unduly liberal in his approach.
For sure, the impoverished nations of South America and Africa deserve their rightful place in the new global economy, but an economically weaker America also might result in adverse influence on the prevailing geo-political equations. If at all we need to wave off the debt, we can do it by entering into bilateral agreements with the specific nations, so that American interests also get due recognition.
Secondly, predicting that all nations will drop trade barriers to work towards a freer trade, can at best be termed as a day-dreaming exercise. The world community is divided into a number of blocks based on a number of parochial considerations that it will be preposterous to even think of uniformity in business and trade.
In today context, when terrorist elements have left their imprints in many parts of the world, the immigration and cross border movement of people has come under strict scrutiny, in order to avoid security lapses. Therefore, an international regime involving free for all at the border is not a wise step. His Excellency President Griswold has four more years to work around, so there’s plenty of room for a reality check.
What political party do you think he probably belongs to? And how might he conceptualize of America’s national interest?
Well, if we go by the existing policies being propagated by the republicans and democrats, the two major constituents of American political spectrum, the views appear nowhere near to their stated positions. President Griswold probably belongs to a minority party with compulsive support from other major political parties.
Major political stakeholders would never compromise their long term political fortune for short term public relation advantages. From the excerpt it appears that President Griswold is not able to conceptualize America’s national interest and requires the services of an able advisor.
Finally, what are some problems that you can find with President Griswold’s agenda? Is it realizable? Why or why not – and which perspective are YOU arguing from?
Problems with President Griswold’s agenda:
- It appears full of shortsightedness, without any understanding of the prevailing international issues.
- The agenda tends to ignore the domestic issues
- The agenda does not reflect a consensual view on major issues, particularly involving the foreign relations
The agenda is certainly not realizable in the present world order.
These arguments are being advanced from the point of view of a responsible American citizen.