Free Paper Samples
We have a large team of skilled writers to choose from to complete your order.
Analyzing how these cases of comparative foreign policy (will be given) reflect or contradict the principles of some of the major paradigms: realism, liberalism, neomarxism or constructivism, feminism, critical theory or individual decision.
Both articles place importance on a country’s association with others and its foreign policy. Irrespective of political barriers caused by disagreements with regards with certain issues such as intervention by other countries, having mutual agreements and cultivating international relations are of utmost importance to the growth and development of countries. In the end, international relationships have laid foundations for the success numerous countries have such as China. Additionally, other regions such as South America have depended on the other countries for political guidance that have ensured such regions enjoy political stability.
To have a deeper understanding of the issue, Tickner (374) argues that multilateralism is of the essence as Brazil has had immense benefits from such agreements and is emerging as a global competitor in the region. Interestingly, through multilateralism the rivalry between Brazil and Argentina has been cleared with the two countries working towards similar economic goals and assisting each other in the process (Tickner 375). Also the region is now under democratic political rules that are appropriate for economic growth and that are in support of multilateralism. In China on the other hand, the main focus is basic human rights in the process of economic growth. Since the country encouraged an ‘open door policy’ in the late 1980s the country has attracted international investors who have played an important role in the economic growth that the country has had in the last several decades. However, a deeper analysis of the situation has indicated that China has placed important on ensuring its citizen’s human rights are protected in the process of acquiring investments. Considering the gross abuse of human rights that occurred during the Tian’anmen bloodshed, the country is more focused on ensuring the citizen’s rights to demonstrate are highly protected.
The main differences with regards to the author’s arguments in the articles are based on how each region handles economic challenges. According to Tickner (375) Brazil was for a long time lagging behind economically as the country depended heavily on its close proximity with the US. However, the relationship between Brazil and a super power reduced its chances of developing as a majority of investors were interested in having the US as an ally and in the process forgot to analyze Brazil as a potential investment hub. On the other hand, China was aggressive in attracting investors in the country as the country operated on the ‘open door policy.’ In the end, there were investors who flocked into China as a majority of international barriers had been removed by the policy thus making China an investment hub. The difference in how the regions dealt with international investors is one of the author’s different approaches.
Additionally, the authors point out on the historical growth of both the regions. For starters Foot (331) states that China is a country that has rich history in culture and economic activities. The fact that there is evidence of trade existing between the Chinese kingdoms and their neighbors in the AD years is a clear indication of the Chinese interest in trade that have necessitated the countries interest in economic growth and development to date. With regards to Brail Tickner (379) is of the idea that the country was for a long time a bit laid back economically thanks to a political system that was quite restrictive of international investors. Inadvertently, the country had little exposure to international trade which prevented economic growth.
The similarities of the authors are based on their view on international relations and their effects on the growth and development of a country. A deeper analysis of articles indicates that the two authors place a lot of importance on international relations with regards to economic growth. Tickner (379) is of the idea that Brail has had an overhaul on its economic stagnation as a result of reduction in international trade barriers that prevented investors from getting attracted to the country. Focusing on Chinese case Foot (337) suggests that the ‘open door policy’ practiced by China is one of the reasons the country has had investors flocking into the country in masses. Both writers are of the agreement that the amount of economic success that the two regions are currently experiencing is a result of a great foreign policy. Irrespective of the resources a country has, it needs the investments of other countries to increase chances of success as there are numerous economic factions that are incomplete. Therefore, having other countries making investments in the regions completes the factions and allows a country to operate freely with others. In the end, how a country relates with others especially those that are economically stable relates to how the investor will react to the country in question.
Interestingly, both authors have indicated that both the regions are now conscious and are focusing on human rights. Brazil for instance has increased the amount of investors who are employing local citizens in a bid to improve the quality of lives of the people in the country (Tickner 379). China on the other hand, was awakened to the idea of human rights when there was gross violation of human rights at the Tian’anmen chaos. The extent of the chaos created a new way through which the leadership class ensures such an incidence will not re-occur.
I agree with Rosemary Foot, in her article ‘China and the Tiananmen bloodshed of June 1989.’ As the ‘China open door’ policy has been discussed in detail and the economic advantages that it has brought the country. For instance China is the latest super power joining other stable economies such as the US and numerous others in Europe such as Germany and Britain. The policy has enhanced the growth and development as investors had freedom and flexible policies that ensured the country benefitted fully from the investments. Additionally, the country is extremely cautious with human rights as any violations might prevent it from being a member of international trade unions such as the WTO that have played a major role in enhancing international trade for China.
According to Foot (328) “China’s ‘open door reform policies;’ opened up new opportunities for economic, cultural and political contacts between Chinese and their counterparts overseas.” As earlier stated, the Chinese policy laid the foundations for the success the country currently has. The investors were able to flock into the country as there were few or no barriers that prevented free trade. Additionally, the Chinese government and political class were all concerned with the economic development of the country which enhanced development. Focusing on South America and Brail in specific, political mismanagement have been one of the reasons that the country has suffered economically; however, the new political class have learnt from past mistakes and from other regions and are placing importance on economically developing the region without relying heavily on other countries.
Economic stability of any region is highly dependent on the concerted effort of numerous factions of the society. However, the political system is a basic foundation for economic success as it sets out the pace at which the country will take economically. A deeper analysis of the two regions indicates that the political arena and the differences have dictated the economic pace a country will take. For instance China has been politically stable for decades which have its origins in the fact that the country has had a rich political history that dates for centuries. However, Brail has suffered from political instability that have taken the attention of the relevant stakeholders who are more interested in ensuring the country does not spiral into a civil war thus putting economic growth as a secondary priority.
Additionally, the trade barriers that are raised primarily to protect the country from exploitation work against the country in question as they prevent important investors from accessing the country. Irrespective of the risks associated, China took the chance with the ‘open door policy’ that have paid off in a great way as the country has reached economic stability that ensures it competes effectively in the global arena. Other stable economies are taking China was a worthy competitor which has created a great reputation for the country.
Adolf Hitler was the leader of the NAZI political party that was in power in Germany between the years of 1933 to 1945. Through his political policies there were twenty eight million deaths during his tenure with six million of them being Jews. To kill such a number of people required an individual who was oblivious to human suffering. Notably, Hitler was the kind of leader that believed no one had the right to criticize him; he led Germany with an iron fist that proceeded to bring the worst form of suffering to the world.
A majority of the killings took place in concentration camps that Hitler had commissioned. He sustained the camps with national funds and ensured they existed throughout. However, out of a busy schedule or a hatred of the places, Adolf Hitler rarely visited the concentration camps. The inhuman conditions in which people died at the concentration camps were enough to put off even Hitler (Hook, 2011). Hitler detached himself from the suffering he was causing people by failing to visit the camps he ensured were open all year round.
Once he discovered he would be captured because Germany was losing, he committed suicide together with his girlfriend whom he had married the previous day (Wyden, 2012). To a leader who had sponsored the death of millions of people the act of committing suicide might seem cowardly; however, the act was quite uncanny. Hitler understood the level of hatred he had generated throughout the world and knew he would be tortured if he was caught alive. Committing suicide saved him from an unforeseen future.
To become a better leader, Hitler ought to have adapted diplomacy in his leadership. Diplomacy would have allowed the people being led an opportunity of owning their government by having a voice. Hitler was the type of leader who never took criticism from any faction in his government (Hook, 2011). Diplomacy would have given Hitler power and ability of staying in power for longer with the authority of the people being led through the strength of the vote. However, his way of leadership attracted more negativity than positivity; in around a decade, Hitler had become the enemy of the whole world.
Hitler’s ideologies circled around a superior race of individuals that would provide the world with people with good looks and high intelligence. He assumed that a certain race was better than the rest and went ahead to destroy the others (Wyden, 2012). Accepting the racial differences that make up the world would have made Hitler a better leader. The differences in races are the foundations that make up the strengths of humanity which Hitler would have taken advantage of to build his reputation and push his agendas.
If Hitler would have been passionate about the human race he would have been a better leader. He would have focused on the well-being of all individuals without focusing on his personal agendas. During the time Hitler had the opportunity of making a great leader if he had associated other people in his decision making processes; however, he took up the role of a dictator by forcing people to act against their will. Hitler was bound to face resistance from the world as he was acting alone; if he was a passionate leader, the resistance would have been support instead.
Adolf Hitler’s Leadership
Walls such as the Great Wall of China have been constructed since the ancient times of Socrates and Plato to the construction of the Berlin wall in the 19th century. The walls run over thousands of kilometers and server particular purpose. Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a surge in illegal immigrants from Mexico. Some immigrants enter the US soil as drug traffickers while others gain illegal access as they seek a home away from home. Efforts to curtain illegal immigration at the US-Mexican border have not been fruitful. “The wall,” as proposed by President Donald Trump is no difference. According to trump, construction of the wall will prevent direct access between of US by Mexicans. The proposal by the president has however not been positively received by all Americans. While some view the endeavor as impractical and a waste of taxpayers’ money, others consider it a a sure way of cutting out illegal Mexican Immigrants to the United States and This paper is therefore aimed at discussing policy documents in support and in objection of the wall policy, as well as providing an explanation based on the needs of the affected people.
Lawyers and human rights activists have been in the forefront in opposing the policy of building the wall. The Fifth Amendment has been instrumental in supporting the claims by the lawmakers on the breach of constitution in case the policy is adopted. The takings clause states that the government has to pay a fair price for land taken (Livni 6). Livni argues that it would be impractical to pay for land running over 2000 miles Livni goes further and states that 95 percent of the Rio Grande- Texas stretch is privately owned (6). According to an article written by Roche, David, et al. in the Environmental Law Reporter 2017, much of the wall is bound to pass along privately held land, or lands owned by Native tribes (63). Additionally, the wall poses environmental restrictions to animals. According to an article written by Cohn, Jeffrey P. building of the wall would restrict Mexican wildlife such as javelinas and ocelots (96). Cohn, and Jeffrey goes further and says the wall will also prevent jaguars from accessing and repopulating the southern areas of US such as Arizona, as is the case at present (96).
According to an article dated 8th October 2017 by the congressional digest, a speech by the secretary of state, John F. Kelly proves that the US- Mexico border wall is good. The secretary of state, while addressing a committee of the Department of Homeland Security outlines that the wall will help Homeland security in ensuring security in the southern region (9). The secretary of state says that the executive order by the president will help in creating a foundation for tighter security at the southern border. This is particularly because by initiating the project, tools and resources needed in provision of security will be provided by the state. Additionally, the secretary of state outlined to the Homeland Security Department that by supporting the bill on US-Mexico border wall will help in eliminating obstacles that have been key in impeding the Security officers from carrying out their roles of protecting the border(9).
In consideration of the need of the people, the government has the mandate of providing security to its people. For instance, it is the role of the government to ensure that immigration rules are followed, and the methods in applying such rules solely depend on the government. However, public opinion and laws determine the extent of the application of directives by the government. According to Vice, Margaret, and Chwe of the Pew Research Center, Mexicans received the wall information negatively (14). The effect of the US-Mexican wall as proposed by President Donald trump has therefore led to a deteriorating US- Mexico relationship
Conclusively, the US-Mexico border wall is likely to cause harm than good. The fact that the wall is a breach to the constitution, prevents free movement of wildlife between the two countries, and portrays a state of isolation between US and Mexico is an indication that the president should consider other better ways of solving illegal immigration of Mexicans to America. Proposals to increase immigration as advocated by human rights activists should be adopted by the president because they promote unity, harmony and humanistic treatment of people. In my view, I would recommend for abolition of the Wall policy as presented by President Donald trump.
The US- Mexico Border Wall
In the late 1960s throughout 1980s, the V hand gesture was a standard way of passing information of Victory. Individuals would raise their index and middle fingers while clenching other fingers; to make a V shape to signify an act of winning over their opponents. At that moment, for approximately 100 years of struggle, the French military would chop off the index and middle fingers of the bowmen from England to prevent them from shooting anymore (Dougherty, 2016). By pointing the fingers at the English bowmen; the French were signalizing that they were seeing the bowmen and had nothing to do but shoot them.
As the Second World War continued, Winston Churchill changed the meaning of reverse sign to mean V for Victory. Initially, the back of the hand was the one facing the viewer; but on this end the fingers pointing towards the viewer (Tiechuan, 2016). Objectively, the fingers were now reversed to signify the Christian cross that was inverted. That is to say; there was no chance to live as Christ died on the cross for all humanity to live. Instead, the sign was symbolizing an act of firing the opponents. The two signs, the victory and the reverse sign, had the same meaning. They both signified an act of success since the reverse peace sign would as well be used to refer that the opponent was on the point of being shoot; being defeated (Dougherty, 2016).
Presently, the two signs have been widely misinterpreted across the globe. Diverse cultures are using signs in various ways. While other cultures use the two symbols to pose in photographs; others use the signs to address their audience. For instance, in Asia, the V sign is used in posing for photo captions. On the other hand, Americans use the reverse hand gesture along most of their conversations in addressing their audience. Therefore it is essential to understand the cultural background of a people before using any hand gesture since the gesture could be passing a different message to the audience
Hand Gesture & Peace Sign
The first section of Article 2 of the US constitution states that “the Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” (umkc.edu). All the executive powers of the president are not expressed in this Article, although it implies that the President of the United States may issue an executive order to direct any federal function. In case of striking airline pilots, I would invoke the Article to direct all the pilots to get back to their work stations in the shortest time possible. I will facilitate this by further ordering the chief of operations in civil aviation to address the issues that precipitated the strike.
After notified of the industrial action, I would immediately call for a press briefing to announce the presidential order. I would communicate through my press secretary the need to have all media outlets represented in the briefing to ensure that the message goes far and wide. I would then follow the national protocol of documenting executive orders by entering this pronunciation in the Federal Register for future reference.
In the implementation of the executive order, I would use my powers to establish any mechanism that is required in fulfilling my directive. In particular, I would ask the civil aviation chief of operations to report directly to me on the progress of strike’s resolution. I would also require them to find the root cause of the strike and institute corrective action to prevent further recurrence of the problem. As the president of the US, I will also ask to be furnished with a report detailing the national and/or diplomatic impacts of the strike and any plan to control the damage caused.
The Executive Powers of the US President
The invention and mass production of weapons recently has resulted to difficulties in conquering and controlling the population, which is why a good number of despots in the last one hundred and fifty years moved to limit access to guns (Kleck, 2017). In the USA before the Revolutionary War, some citizens owned guns and immediately the war erupted the colonial powers implemented firearm confiscation policies. As a result, the Second Amendment was enacted which made many acquire weapons. Therefore, many own guns, threatening the security of the States (Kleck, 2017). USA has recorded most gun than any other nation. For instance deadliest attacks has been recorded in places like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings incident, Pulse nightclub shooting in Orland 2016, Aurora Movie Theater in 2012, and the mass shooting at Texas church in 2017 (Mervosh, 2018). For these reasons academics, pundits, lawmakers, and other American citizens called for gun confiscation (Kleck, 2017). However, some individuals hold the idea that those who are interested in preventing mass murder should not support gun control, as the Americans ancestors did not arm them to hunt, but to protect themselves from those performing the shooting.
According to the report, the civilians own approximately, three hundred million guns. For instance, a third of American households and twenty-two percent of individuals possess arms. The sales of the firearms exploded because of the panic buying over dreads of more weapon control (Kleck, 2017). Because of the increased incidences of shootings, for example, the Orlando shooting, Las Vegas shooting, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, there has been a growing desire for more gun control measures (Kleck, 2017). Almost sixty percent support that gun laws should be restricted, about thirty percent say that the rules should remain as it is a while, and five percent say the laws should be less restricted (Kleck, 2017). Such surveys show that the most significant population has a feeling that it is crucial for the federal state to implement stricter gun laws to save the lives of civilians from careless shootings.
Values and Interests
According to studies, both the economic, political, and cultural factors have greatly influenced the perception of the problem of gun control (Kleck, 2017). After Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in the year 2012, researchers such as Haider-Markel and Joslyn analyzed data from many national polls to determine the correlation between the beliefs concerning the causes of mass shootings and gun ownership (Kleck, 2017). The survey consisted of more than two thousand respondents and shown some positive outcomes. The researchers found that the American culture such as the use of television, internet, and watching movies frequently, was a major cause of mass shootings (Kleck, 2017). The respondents argued that civilians easily access the internet and may quickly learn how to use a firearm. For instance, when such individuals get access to guns, they might end up using the weapon to kill others. Besides, movies contribute significantly to the mass shootings in America (Kleck, 2017). The use of guns for killing characters is every day in most movies. Some individuals may take it as a deliberate act, and when they access firearms, they may end up using it to kill others (Kleck, 2017). Similarly, the televisions also contribute significantly to the shootings, as there are some programs which show how to use a gun. American culture, therefore, has a significant influence on shots. Similarly, the analysis of the information from mass shootings in churches, Mosque, Movie Theater, and nightclubs supports the above findings.
Moreover, politics play a significant role in gun ownership and mass shootings (Johnson, 2016). For instance, politicians are afraid to take on National Rifle Association (NRA), a gun lobby that mostly contributes millions of US dollars during precedential campaigns and to some extent influence the elections. The Congress is afraid to take on the Association since they are aware that if they make some suggestive statements or any declaration limiting the gun control, the NRA will use a lot of money in a campaign to downfall them (Johnson, 2016). According to the data, the National Rifle Association spends much more than what the leading pro-gun control activism group spends on lobbying on different congress (Johnson, 2016). In addition, other pro-gun associations like the Gun Owners of America spends many cash for congress to implement less strict rules on gun control. Some of the associations also funded some politicians during the campaign and therefore fighting them may not be easy (Johnson, 2016). For this reason, the political reward is concentrated on the side of fewer restrictions making it difficult to pass gun control laws. Therefore, gun ownership and mass shootings increases.
Lastly, the US weapons and bullets industry has employed many individuals (Johnson, 2016). The firm is contributing much to the economy. For example, it provides more than seven billion US dollars in federal and state taxes annually (Johnson, 2016). Employing strict rules on gun control may result from purchasing of fewer firearms, reducing the income that the company generates (Johnson, 2016). As a result, some workers may be laid off, impacting negatively into the economy. Such fears may too contribute to less strict gun control laws, increasing gun ownership and therefore, shootings.
Scope of the Problem
According to government data and other reports on gun violence, youngsters in the USA and the rest of civilians are at threat of getting shot (Johnson, 2016). For example, young people can be shot by their follow children, their parents, strangers, and by themselves. The bullets struck the children at the park, home, or at school. A report by CNN, explains that weekly, there is an average of one school shooting countrywide (Johnson, 2016). For instance, the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, in the State of Florida, left seventeen students and staff deceased (Mervosh, 2018). More deaths on children are on records, which is a worrying trend. Besides, the mass killing in Texas church in 2017 left around 26 people dead, nine dead in historic black church situated in South Carolina in 2015, and six people killed at Sikh temple in Wisconsin in 2012 (Mervosh, 2018). In addition, the Pulse nightclub shooting also left many injured and some dead. According to reports, USA experience more mass shootings in different places and not only in schools.
The effects of gun control are that it encourages miscreants. For instance, firm gun control applies to civilians rather than the wrongdoers who can access the firearms through dubious means. Criminals' desire to commit crime increase when they know that the citizens are indefensible and therefore, cannot retaliate whenever there is an attack (Johnson, 2016). Besides, the gun control influences crime to take place largely making it not achieve its principal objective. The driving factor of evil is the absence of measures that are put in place to ensure that criminals, who intentionally break laws stop committing such barbaric acts (Johnson, 2016). Because of undirected laws, people find it easy to commit gun violence easily (Johnson, 2016). Also, gun control encourages insecurity among citizens, as the policy discourages one from accessing a weapon. A civilian therefore becomes vulnerable to criminal attacks.
Conspiracy theory describes the causes of gun control in the USA (Bergmann, 2018). The mass shootings that were common in President Obama's error, some said was a way the government wanted to use to convince the Congress to pass the gun control legislation (Bergmann, 2018). Such individuals used to convince people that the government was coming for their gun yet even the law cannot put a total burn on arms (Bergmann, 2018). Conspiracy theories can convince a good number of people since they are developed after the occurrence of an event (Bergmann, 2018). Lastly, NTU Institute for public knowledge is a social work group that responded to the problem of gun control (Bergmann, 2018). The association triggered a debate to examine the causer of gun violence and found that the arrests of people of color were among the causes of firearm violence.
The main goal of the current policy about gun control to reduce gun violence and make the American communities safer. For instance, this should be the aim of most countries as the primary goal is to protect its citizens (Chapin, 2017). The current policy has gaps since undirected laws, which promote gun violence and minify background checks, support it. The Congress are the ones who can fix the rules to reduce firearm violence which the President fights for the passing of common sense weapon safety reforms which the majority of US citizens supports. Surprisingly, Congress has continuously failed in passing such laws (Chapin, 2017). Nevertheless, the Administration has announced some series of commonsense executive acts that ensures that all the firearm businesses are licensed and the background check conducted (Chapin, 2017). Therefore, the government puts on record the people with dangerous weapons preventing illegal access of the guns. The government is has directed federal prosecutors to proceed to focus on effective means of enforcing the gun laws to make the USA society free from gun violence (Chapin, 2017). As a result, the government has established an Internet Investigation Center to ease tracking of illicit online weapon trafficking (Chapin, 2017). In addition, the federal sta
Policy Analysis and Development (Gun Control)
The debate about democracy in China has created a lot of controversial perspectives in the present. Although China is not fully democratized, it has shown concerns to become a justice nation. Each country has its way of becoming democratic; thus China uses different approaches in its walk to be a democratic state. In this essay, China’s political history and current barriers in developing their democracy will be critically examined; and then used to make a concise argument on the type of freedom that should be instituted in China.
In China, the first political party was the Kuomintang established in Guangdong province. The party was founded on the 25th of August in the year 1992. In the subsequent years, a plethora of political parties formed to take part in the National Assembly elections. The parties were as follows. First, the Nationalist party depicting revolutionaries. Second, the Republican Party delineating militarist. Third, the Unity Party presenting the gentry and fourth, the Democratic Party characterizing the constitutional monarchist's group that was existing before that period. The constitutional monarchists who were part of the Democratic Party felt that there was no one representing their interests being that at that moment it was only the Nationalist and Republican Parties that got to the provisional senate within the Provisional Republican Government. And would present the interest of the revolutionaries and militaries respectively.
Trials to bring democracy still faces other several challenges. Firstly, most Chinese are farmers residing in the interior parts and experiencing hardships in accessing information through televisions and internet sources. And thereby making it hard for them to come out and ask to be allowed to vote. Secondly, the government is working around the clock to ensure that any group that erects with the objective of bringing democracy is depoliticized — making it hard for the masses to come together and do extensive political talks and campaigns to bring about democracy. Thirdly, most Chinese are still lack fundamental knowledge taught in the classroom. From how they approach and comment on different issues posted in major Chinese websites; they portray incapacities to make critical and logical arguments. Most of them feel attacked by people who attempt to recommend to them to adopt the western-democracy and education systems.
Democracy is a condition in the mind that takes several steps to bring about; and not all about laws and free atmosphere to do election and replace leaders. China is known as one of the prosperous nations in the world. The success anchors on its excellent economic system and active military and foreign rules. As a result of being led by one general party, the state has been in a position to formulate strategies and policies that ensures China maintains a better economic system alongside strong military and foreign policies. Importantly, the masses should now push for more civil freedom and demand for more transparency in the workings of the government. (Li, Gong and Xiao, 2016). In the process, the government will be forced to account for every service it delivers to the citizens. Thereby bringing about a democratic state in which members are satisfied with the operations and therefore become more willing to make efforts towards bettering their country.
In conclusion, China has faced various challenges in the process of bringing about democracy. The downfalls are as a result of the unwillingness or illiteracy thereby making it hard for groups to dialogue to execute and institute a multiparty state. However, the country has managed to have a robust economic body alongside an active military and international regulations due to operation under one party. Therefore more efforts should not be towards bringing about democracy-free elections and rules. Instead, to keep the government in check by asking for transparency and accountability in all its doings.
Democracy in China, is China a democracy
In the year 1931, Canada became independent in making foreign policy decisions from Britain. Independence, economic interests, as well as the defense of democracy, is the guiding principles of Canadian foreign policy (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). To achieve its policy goals, Canada has been applying both peace and war. Even though there are differences between the American and Canadian foreign policy, they share some similarities (Thérien & Mace 2013). The trade relationship in the two countries is balanced; therefore, they have some universal trading policies (Thérien & Mace 2013). Notably, it is a mere assumption that the two countries are growing more dependent on each other (Cros, 2012). The independence of America from Canada promotes Canadian individuality of USA.
Canada is a country that consistently applies multilateral diplomacy to achieve its self-interested objective (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). Even though some individuals may argue that by Canada aligning itself with British, America, as well as France it followed a multilateral approach and therefore it is different from following others (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). Canada, therefore, does not support any country but only promotes multilateralism. According to the text, Canada’s multilateralism proportionality is less than its main allies, including the USA, and therefore, the foreign policies if the two countries are different (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). In UN resolutions, Canada is the least among significant member states. Canada is, therefore, the only country that has no permanent seat in the UN Security Council (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). The argument that when America is on war, Canada too is involved in the same fight is not valid as there are differences in some of their policies concerning their boundaries (Paquin & Beauregard, 2013). For instance, during the war in Vietnam where America was highly involved, Canada did not participate. As a result, it is right to conclude that Canadian foreign policies are independent of Americans.
Although some articles are stressing on the independence of Canadian foreign policy to Americans, others emphasize the evidence on how Canada depends in the USA. According to Thérien & Mace (2013), the current studies show that up to now, Canadians still feel that their country is closer in terms of its values and goals to the USA than other countries. Another study on international trade shows that what happens to the USA in terms of exchange of goods and services is more crucial in Canada (Thérien & Mace 2013). The level of trade in the USA affects that in Canada since they are close and also share some trade policies (Thérien & Mace 2013). The involvement of the USA in Canadian foreign policy is beneficial to Canada (Thérien & Mace 2013). For instance, such participations increase Canada’s distinctiveness.
On the other hand, the article by Cros (2012), suggests that the entry of Canada in Organizations of American States (OAS), was to enhance the role of the country in the world. Canada entered OAS without aligning on views of the USA and their techniques. Also, entry into the organization promotes the efficiency of the program (Cros, 2012). As a result, Canada is a great nation to the USA and other countries within the organizations. The association of the country with OAS was also to counterbalance US power (Cros, 2012). Canada, through the organization, has played a stronger role to strengthen its uniqueness from the USA. The country for long has fought to be independent of USA (Cros, 2012). Besides, the level of democracy that Canada portrayed to Americans clearly shows the difference in their foreign policies.
In conclusion, Canadian foreign policies are independent of the Americans. According to the text, the points that support Canadian independence from USA policies overweighs those that oppose. Canadian sovereignty is seen according to their level of democracy. Also, its individualism is seen in weak contribution to the UN Security Council as compared to other big senior member states. Therefore, in terms of security matters, the two nations have differences in the policies guiding them. Even if the two countries share some similarities in policies that govern trade between them, they exhibit many differences. Therefore, the independence of America from Canada promotes Canadian individuality of USA.
During his presidential campaigns, Donald Trump mentioned time and time again that he wished to restore America’s former glory. According to his manifesto, this would partly be achieved by regulating immigrants that enter the country especially from Southern America. In Trump’s perspective, a physical barrier would serve to halt uncontrolled entry into America via the Southern Border. Additionally, it would alleviate suffering that immigrants undergo while crossing the Desert of Mexico enroute to the US. When Trump occupied the White house, he began the process of actualizing his dream for the barrier. Thus, he lobbied for support from different groups in building the wall. The idea has received support and backlash with equal measure in America and beyond. Currently, there are different voices at work commending or rebuking the building of the wall. The various stakeholders in action include President Trump himself, the Democrats, Mexican-Americans and other immigrants, human right activists, and the international community.
The dominant trend in the conversations include the necessity of the wall, the court case against the idea, the source of funding for the wall, Trump’s adamancy on the issue, and Democrats’ undedicated opinion (Turley). President Trump from inception thought that the border wall was an effective gesture towards regulating immigration in the country. The wall would also curb the illegal narcotics trade that amounts to about $150 billion annually (Bloomberg). In June 2015, Trump termed the Latino immigrants who get into the US through the border as “people with numerous problems, criminals, and rapists” (Morin). He further cited that Mexico as a country is responsible for the influx of apparently “useless” people into the country. The Latino immigrants in the country also competed for American Jobs, making native and legitimate citizens to stay jobless. In his address to the Congress in January 2017, President Trump reiterated that the wall would restore border control and observance of the law guarding the American perimeter (Turley). His latest gesture related to the wall was a temporary government shutdown in garnering financial and logistical support for the erecting the barrier.
President Trump has all along maintained his stance that Mexico would pay for the construction of the 722 feet wall that would cost approximately $19 billion over a period of 10 years (Quester). Trump suggested that cutting tax remittances to Mexico through a review of The Patriot Act would provide the money required for the construction of the wall. The US may also decide to reduce trade dynamics with Mexico and use the proceeds of this business distortion to fund the wall. Mexican President Mr. Pena has consistently maintained that his country would not pay for a project that stands in the way of all what his nation believes in (Quester). Since initial plans to have Mexico pay for the wall are not forthcoming, President Trump is now desperately turning to the Congress to have it provide the much needed money to build the wall. He plans to exchange this favor for his support of the Democrats’ sponsored program on legitimizing 800000 undocumented young Mexican immigrants (Morin). The Democrats have expressed disapproval of the construction of the wall and thus refused to throw their weight behind Trump’s budgetary request for border security. In an interesting observation, the same left wing politicians were for the construction of 700 border wall five years ago (Thiessen).
The various trends in this discussion are important in shaping the modern democracy in America. First, the trends introduce a delay tactic that is important in producing a balanced opinion from all political sectors. If the Congress approved the border wall budget the first time it was proposed, the American citizenry would have lost faith in its regulatory authority. The trends also put to test the accountability of the government regarding the control of public funds. For instance, Trump’s suggestion that Mexico would pay for the wall is a gesture to indicate that he was sensitive of the Americans’ opinion on the utilization of the public coffers. Perhaps the most important reason to explain why the border wall proposal is yet to materialize is the validity of Trump’s proposals. Different spheres keep on asking if building a border wall is moral. Further, it is questionable if the intended purpose of the wall would be achieved. Even without the wall, there are forces involved in the smuggling of drugs into the country. These illicit dealings happen in the full glare of law-enforcing authorities. Additionally, immigration in the United States is not solely from the Latinos. There are other avenues through which immigrants enter the country which may not be resolved by the building of the wall. The rhetorical trends behind this conversation are taking the better part of the proposal and would eventually carry the day in the materialization or the collapse of the wall.
The key voices that define the conversation about the Mexican border wall are those of President Trump and those of his Democratic counterparts. These are the voices involved in the heated altercation on to or not to build the wall. The wall was the Democrats idea from the beginning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2013 supported the building of 700 foot long wall along the US-Mexico border. In 2019, however, she was in the frontline in condemning the construction of the barrier terming it “immoral” (Thiessen). In fact, Trump’s idea on the wall was based on a popular policy running in the political circles for close to three years. The wall was central to his dogma of “Making America Great Again.” He believes that the infiltration by foreign entities into the American sovereignty is the reason behind the deterioration of the American dream (Morin). Therefore, curbing this infiltration would bring his desire of reviving the lost glory of America closer. However, as the watchdog for government of the day, the Congress must vet all the proposals made by the White House. The existential feud between these two factions is the main reason behind the prolonged debate on the construction of the wall.
The most important way of understanding the Trump-Congress conversation of the wall is looking at the budget required to build the wall. The Congress is the money-regulating arm of the government. Therefore, the activities of this arm are also important in understanding this conversation. The Senate, for instance, debated a bill christened Gang of Eight that seeks to support the construction of the wall, but not in the manner that Trumps tells it (Thiessen). It is then understandable that while Democrats are behind the border control policy, they do not seem to support Trump’s justification of the idea. Although it is a contentious topic to discourse, there are certain ways through which a common citizen can make sense out of the proposal to build the border wall. Looking at the fundamental benefits of the wall will help one to judge and take sides. If the border wall will indeed bolster security through barring criminals, it is important to support its construction. However, if the wall will dehumanize American neighbors and treat them as second class human beings who are naturally criminals and rapists, then the construction of the wall remains a political rhetoric which will not see the light of the day.
The lesser voices in the conversation on Mexican border wall are those of the people of Mexico in and out of America and the international community. President Pena’s refusal to fund the wall means that he is unsatisfied in Trump’s argument that he is responsible for the influx of Latino-associated criminals into the US. Initially, Trump maintained that Mexican immigrants to America were lowly skilled people who contributed nothing to the growth of America’s economy. Any Mexican would recognize this statement as a blatant lie and an open show of disrespect to the Mexican elite in America working in different industries. Mexicans living near the border have already expressed disappointment on the wall since it makes them appear as pariahs (Diaz). Some have even staged demonstration to oppose the wall, making desperate pleas to Trump’s administration to cease seeing them as America’s enemies. Mexicans living in Tijuana region are already unhappy with the heavy machinery producing noise and other forms of environmental disturbance. They are also dismayed by the exploitation by the American government since they have to be hired cheaply to build the wall (Diaz).
The international community is rather silent on the issue of border wall. President Benjamin Netanyahu, however, came out in support of the wall claiming that the strategy in his country succeeded in barring belligerent factors from accessing Israel (Ravid). A United Nations’ expert on biodiversity rebuked the wall saying that it would result in environmental disturbances. Since flora and fauna have no respect for political borders, a physical wall means that some species would cease to exist since they depend on natural environment to reproduce (Xinhua). The European refugee crisis also shows that a physical barrier is not effective in controlling immigration (Leon, Paynter). These sentiments are very important and should not be ignored in analyzing this bone of contention. The failure of the wall to work in other places, for example, is proof that physical barriers are not effective in immigration control. The proposal to build a wall is not based on any empirical evidence and is bound to fail even at the expense of taxpayers’ money.
In conclusion, the debate on Mexican border wall has been
The Mexican Border Wall
Don’t be suspicious! Our Essay writing service is here to provide you with anonymity; we are not interested in collecting your personal data. Your email or phone number remains private. None of your payment data is stored in our database.