What foreign policy, Mr. President?

Dr. R. Battista, Librarian and Teacher at Facoltà Avventista Teologica, Firenze.

Assuming that Ben Carson wins the election for president of the USA. In this article, we want to focus exclusively on American foreign policy. It is in this field I would like an Adventist Christian president would make a difference.


Republican foreign policy, from Eisenhower, Nixon, to Reagan and George H. W. Bush stood out for clarity on strategic guidelines and prudent tactic. With George W. Bush, this trend changed dramatically. Under the pressure of September 11, G.W. Bush has embarked on a series of revenge actions, in which the reasons put forward to justify convinced the world, quite a little. The last decade led to the idea that the global leadership of the United States is coming to an ending. In fact, the relative decline of the US and the emergence of new powers in the world constitute inevitable result of contemporary international scenario.[1]

A closer look, however, reveals the persistence of some of the structural features of American. They configure three pillars of this hegemony:

· The dollar remains the dominant currency in the international monetary system.

· The superiority of the US military.

· The American ideology. A mixture of liberalism, democracy and multi ethnicity.

The other side of the story: New York September 11, 2001.

Since that day, each of the three pillars of US hegemony appear shaken.

· The primacy of the dollar contributes to a situation of rising debt and almost double the structural deficit, internal and external.

· The US military superiority is becoming less spendable in conflicts, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, and public opinion is not ready now to support the sacrifices, both human and material.

· The strategic failures of the years when he was President George W. Bush (Iraq in particular), have further complicated the exercise of hegemony, increasing the resistance to US supremacy and strengthening the historical reluctance of American voters to support the charges of global interventionism.

· To these problems, after 2008, we suffer the effects of the economic crisis, which have heightened the demand for international disengagement and diverted resources to budget items for international military intervention of the United States.

A challenge for Ben Carson. Ethically right, but politically wrong and vice versa: what should I do?

· Syria. Can Americans fight alongside a terrorist organization? In fact, it is not convenient for the interests of the United States that a dictatorial regime like that Alawite be replaced by a new leadership that has political connection with fundamentalist movements (Nusra Front, Syrian Muslim Brotherhood).

· Egypt. Hosni Mubarak got deposed (a strong ally of Washington, and immediately the American administration makes official its support to the Muslim Brotherhood. Because of its territorial rooting, and hoping to gain their favor, being prevalent force.

· Tunisia. The revolution against the corruption of the Trabelsi family has benefited from the support of the US. However, the country is now facing a resurgence of radical fundamentalism. (Ennahda led by Rachid Ghannouchi).

· Libya. The United States joined a military intervention against Moammar Kadafi, giving the usual strong military contribution. After Kaddafi’s death, the US found themselves unexpectedly side by side Islamic extremists who were fighting the dictator. Libya lies in a social chaos that encourages terrorism (the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi and the attack on the French embassy in Tripoli). ISIS invasion with its horrors. Hard to know what were the political gains for the United States, Europe, and world peace.

· Israel. Americans should not support Israel uncritically, unless they would pay the cost. The “State of Palestine” It's officially part of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It will: "begin to submit the documentation for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Palestinian Territories".

· Ukraine. ‘We should absolutely consider lethal aid’ to Ukraine (US Gen. Martin Dempsey).[2] Highly problematic. Are we going to a new east-west confrontation?

T. Gen. Ben Hodges said that: “supplying Ukraine with lethal aid is going to increase stakes for Russia, accused of helping the rebels in eastern Ukraine militarily, something Moscow consistently denies”. Highly problematic. Are we going to a new east-west confrontation?[3]

All these situations have made it difficult for Americans to find e coherent foreign policy. There is 'a strong social instability. Some of the new leaderships have not yet consolidated their power. The dialogue with political moderate Islam appears to be unreal. Everything is ambiguous. Everything appears in the balance between morally right and politically wrong.

Mr. (brother… ) President this is going to be a hard task.

Raffaele Battista

[1] See:


Back to list