Charitable Activities in a Foreign Country – A Guide For US Charities

Featured

Posted on by
Reply
Greg McRay asked:

The issue of a charity having operations in a foreign country is rather complex, one that involves oversight not only by the Internal Revenue Service, but also by the Department of Homeland Security. It is fraught with pitfalls that can only be avoided if you understand the rules. The Foundation Group has worked with thousands of 501(c)(3) clients with foreign activities…and each situation is different. I can only scratch the surface in this article, but my goal is help you understand some of the challenges associated with foreign country activities.

This subject can best be divided into two primary scenarios: 1) direct activities and 2) charitable giving. Let’s look at each in order:

Direct activities. Direct activities is defined as a domestic (US) tax-exempt organization operating some or all of its programs physically in a foreign country. There are many examples of this: schools, clinics, economic development programs, orphanages, etc.. This can involve US citizens living in and operating the program in the foreign country, a program fully staffed by foreign nationals, or a combination of the two. The biggest challenge in maintaining an IRS-compliant foreign country program is the same as for any 501(c) organization, that is, the program must satisfy a charitable purpose. What is different is the ever-changing landscape of international relations.

One of the key issues here is OFAC – the Office of Foreign Asset Control. As explained at US Treasury website

“The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. OFAC acts under Presidential national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions are based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments.”

In a nutshell, OFAC determines where you can and cannot go and with whom you can and cannot deal with. While technically it is a Treasury Department program, Homeland Security is directly involved. It is imperative that any US charity that intends to put programs in place in a foreign country know what OFAC is saying. It is difficult enough to learn how to acclimate to a unique culture. You certainly do not need the headache of running afoul of Homeland Security.

Charitable giving. This activity usually involves a US charity financially supporting the efforts of a foreign charitable organization. This topic may seem more straight-forward on the surface, but it is actually treated with greater scrutiny by the IRS than are direct activities. For example, a US charity gives money to a poverty relief program based in New Delhi, India. In principle, this is OK, so long as the foreign country or agency is not on any OFAC list (see above). The problem is the lack of direct, fiduciary responsibility for the expenditure of funds by the US organization. In our example, the US charity must ensure that the program being supported qualifies as one that would be recognized as 501(c)(3) if it were in the US. In addition, the US charity must require a detailed accounting of the expenditure of funds in order to monitor compliance with 501(c)(3) related expenditures. Should the domestic organization find out that money is not being spent in a way that would be acceptable by the IRS, the donations to that foreign organization must cease immediately.

Also, the IRS will not allow a domestic charity to be simply a “money conduit” to a foreign organization. US law does not allow such direct-affiliate organizations. In other words, a US charity cannot exist for the sole purpose of financially supporting a specific foreign charity. A US charity must be organized for specific charitable purposes that it alone is responsible for, one of which may be the support of foreign charitable work. It is best when that support is not tied to any specific foreign charity on an exclusive basis. For a new organization it is OK to name the foreign charities to be supported initially, but it would be a big mistake to make the support of those named charities the sole purpose. The IRS would probably deny the application for 501(c)(3) status. Revenue rulings 63-252 and 66-79 deal with some of these issues directly.

If your NPO currently has foreign activities, or plans to in the future, get educated. Your success or failure is at stake.

Canada drugs

Foreign Policy of Founding Fathers

Posted on by
Reply
Paul Davis asked:




Albert Einstein said: “Politics is more difficult than physics.”

I certainly agree considering how many of our national political figureheads over the years have aligned themselves to do business with the Saudi Royal family and other heavily financed special interest groups to finance their political and personal objectives.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy said: “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Perhaps we would do well to hear from our Founding Fathers and revisit the foreign policy they gave us.

…Neither can any external coercive power convince the understanding of the poorest idiot, nor fines and prisons be judged fit and adequate penalties for faults purely intellectual…. William Penn (1644-1718) The Great Case of Liberty and Conscience 1670

The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms his strength into right, and obedience into duty. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) The Social Contract 1762

The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Second Speech on Conciliation with America, the Thirteen Resolutions, March 22, 1775

Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation–the last arguments to which kings resort. Patrick Henry (1736-1799) Speech at the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitor? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) The Federalist Papers 1787

Politics, like religion, hold up torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error.
Thomas Jefferson

Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. Thomas Jefferson

Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. Thomas Paine (1737-1809) Address and Declaration 1791

Force cannot change right. Thomas Jefferson – To John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information which the duty of my station will permit, or the public good shall require to be disclosed. George Washington – Address to the House of Representatives, March 30, 1796

I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to inter-meddle in the internal concerns of another; and that, if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace. George Washington – Letter to James Monroe, August 25, 1796

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. …The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. George Washington – Farewell Address, September 17, 1797

Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson – First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Letter to William Short, 1791

We certainly cannot deny to other nations that principle whereon our own government is founded, that every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will. Thomas Jefferson – To Thomas Pinckney, December 30, 1792

Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has extended her dominion over them all, Africa, Asia, an America have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit.
Alexander Hamilton on Colonialism, The Federalist Papers 1787

My ardent desire is to keep the United States free from political connections with every other country, to see them independent of all and under the influence of none. George Washington (Letter to Patrick Henry, October 9, 1795)

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Samuel Adams (1722-1803) Father of the American Revolution in an article he wrote to the Boston Gazette, October 14, 1771

Political freedom includes in it every other blessing. All the pleasures of riches, science, virtue, and even religion itself derive their value from liberty alone. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) Founder of the American Public Schools to Catharine Macaulay, January 18, 1769

Remember, that in all countries where the freedom of the poor has been taken away, in whole or in part, that the freedom of the rich lost its defence. The circle has ever continued to constrict, till lessening to a point it became absolute. Thomas Paine – A serious address to the people of Pennsylvania 1778
This country, which has given to the world the example of physical liberty, owes to it that of moral emancipation also. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) To John Adams, January 22, 1821

Because people may betray themselves …people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it. James Madison (1751-1836) Essay in the National Gazette, December 20, 1792

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state. John Adams, Free-Press Clause, Massachusetts Constitution 1780

In every human breast, God has implanted a principle, which we call love of freedom; it is impatient of oppression and pants for deliverance. Phyllis Wheatley (1753-1784) The Boston Post-Boy 1774

“Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence . . . so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land.” Abraham Lincoln on the founding fathers, August 17, 1858

“Give me liberty or give me death.” Patrick Henry March 23, 1775

“The people are the source of all authority and power.” John Adams, 1774

“I am persuaded and fully convinced that a permanent standing army [is a necessity].” George Washington, to Congress, September 2, 1776

“O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare to oppose not only the tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted around the globe. O! Receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.” Thomas Paine, Common Sense, January 10, 1776

“We have not yet applied to any foreign power for assistance, nor offered our commerce for their friendship.” Benjamin Franklin, 1775

“I trust the experience of error will enable us to act better in the future.” George Washington, 1781

“I have not yet begun to fight.” John Paul Jones, 1779

We mistake the object of our government, if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other powers is not or ought not ever to be the object of republican systems. Charles Pinckney (1757-1824) Constitutional Convention, June 25, 1787

Indulging no passions which trespass on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the true glory of the United States to cultivate peace by observing justice, and to entitle themselves to the respect of the nations at war by fulfilling their neutral obligations with the most scrupulous impartiality. James Madison (1751-1836) First Inaugural Address – March 4, 1809

America well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extraction, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) Address, July 4, 1821

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions and her prayers. But she does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. John Quincy Adams – Address, July 4, 1821

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. James Monroe – Annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823

Separated as we are from Europe by the great Atlantic ocean, we can have no concern in the wars of the European Governments nor in the causes which produce them. – James Monroe – Annual message to Congress, December 7, 1824

I confess I have the same fears for our South American brethren; the qualifications for self-government in society are not innate. They are the result of habit and long training, and for these they will require time and probably much suffering. Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Everett, March 27, 1824)

“We must make the best of mankind as they are, since we cannot have them as we wish.” George Washington, 1776

“The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my conviction is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated.” President James Madison, “Advice to My Country,” October 1834

Malice toward none, charity for all.

Self-government does not come without a struggle. Certainly freedom is not free. It was purchased for us by the lives, fortunes, blood, and sacred of honor of our Founding Fathers. Let us therefore hold dear to the spirit in which they walked and founded our republic. May we always remain one nation under God, united in purpose and power.

Website content

The Role of Israeli Lobby in US Presidential Elections

Posted on by
Reply
Zeinab Ghasemi Tari asked:




“Bill, I think you’re going to be President someday. I think you’ll do a good job, but there’s one thing above all you must remember: God will never forgive you if you don’t stand by Israel.”

Paster W.O.Vaught to Bill Clinton (Clinton, 2004:353)

While most of the countries of the world – at least apparently -are demanding Israel to change and revise its policies toward Palestine and withdrew from occupied territories, United States still supports Israel strongly. For decades US government has provided Israel with military, financial and diplomatic supports; and both major parties of United States, Republicans and Democrats, unquestionably support Israel. America supports Israel despite the great expanses that this backing imposes on America and Americans.

This excessive support is backed and forced by the exercise of influence of Israeli lobby in America. Israeli and Jewish lobby are very influential in Americans foreign policy and this influence becomes clearer when it is compared to other ethnic minorities in U.S. such as Arab Lobbies or Armenians. Perhaps three important factors can explain the reason of this unconditional support: Israel’s strategic value, Jewish economic influence and power in various arenas including US presidential election, and the emergence of Evangelical and Christian Zionism.

Many books and articles are written about the influence of Jewish and Israeli lobbyist in the process of American decision making. While some observers believe that Jews play a very important role in American policy, others maintain that this influence is exaggerated. This is the case in the issue of U.S. presidential election: some observers argue that the U.S. presidents have to give special interest after their election due to the financial helps they receive from Jewish contributors in their presidential campaigns; also Jews have a high rate of turnout in presidential election compared to non-Jew Americans. Others believe that the amount of Jew’s financial contribution is not that much significant, on the other hand Jews make only 3 percent of American population.

The question is that is Jew’s financial contribution in form of campaign donation, and high rate of turn out the only reason for the U.S. president’s support for Israel or as it was mentioned there are other reasons responsible for this unconditional support.

The theory used in this paper is political theory of Pluralism; based on this theory the political power in the society is not limited to the governments, the electorate or a small group of elite, but it is distributed among a wide number of groups including interested groups- here Israeli lobby which plays an important role in American foreign policy as the most influential minority group in the U.S. This concept versus the idea that the power is mostly concentrated in the governments.

The method of this research is content analysis: the research tries to clarify the point and illustrate this relationship with providing some data and statistics about the amount of Jew’s financial contribution to the process of presidential election, as well as some extracts of Clinton and Bush speeches which is addressed to support this influential ethnic group. The method of data collection is use of books and primary documents (speeches) and the internet.

U.S Presidential Candidates and Support for Israel

In U.S. presidential campaigns all the candidates, no matter whether they are Republican or Democrats, have one commonality and a subject that they all agree, at least publicly, and that is U.S. relation and support of Israel. Though there is a controversy about extend of the support in major parties (Republicans and Democrats); some believe that Democrats are more intense in their support of Israel, others argue that Evangelical Christians who vote heavily for Republicans are stronger in their support for Israel. Nevertheless American Jews vote more to democratic candidates, and it is said that only 25% of Jews voted for George Bush in 2004. This table shows the relationship between party affiliation and religious identification:

As the table suggest the Jews tend to be more democrats than republican.

Nevertheless the republicans, and in this case George Bush defends Israel and its policies. in his speech addressed to American Jewish committee in may 2001 he said that his top foreign policy priority is the safety and security of Israel, and that his administration would support Israel against terrorism and violence steadfastly:

“By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America. Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel” (Bush’s Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, May 8, 2004)

George W. Bush made his first trip to Israel before deciding to run for Presidential campaigns.

Bill Clinton nominated two Supreme Court Justices, both Jewish. In his first term, he had two Jewish Cabinet members and dozens of Jews held other key Administration posts. Clinton’s reply after Israeli Ambassador Shoval presented his credentials. In September 10, 1998 he said that America and Israel share special bond and that American and Israeli relation are unique: “Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, as a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted.” (September 10, 1998).

After his presidency, Clinton at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto said that: If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die.” It is while Clinton had avoided serving in Vietnam. In 1995 when all 14 members of U.N. Security Council called on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Jerusalem, Clinton vetoed it.

What is the reason for this unconditional support? It is said that presidential candidates must support Israel to increase their chance of presidency. By supporting Israel they will have the support of the Jewish minority in presidential election both in voting and campaign donation and the media which plays a very important role in public opinion. The candidates promise material and diplomatic support and none of them criticize Israel policies. First of all it is better to have some information about the American Jewish population and demography.

American Jewish population and demography

Jewish population in America has high turnout rate in presidential election compared to non- Jew Americans and other ethnic minorities; at the same time most of the Jewish voters, near 89 percent, are inhabited in key states like: California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While it is argued that the low percentage of Jews cannot be that much influential in the result of the election, but the electoral college system is in such a way that even few number of voters can have significant influence on the final result, esp. in this case where the Jewish population is concentrated in important states as it was mentioned.

Another important point is the Evangelical Christians with much greater population compared to Jews and they play an important role in the outcome of the election, this would be described later in the paper.

Jew’s Campaign Donations

It is said that Jewish individuals are nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, though this number is not exact and some believe that the number for the rich Jewish Americans is more or less than this rate. Considering the Jewish population (2% to 3% of whole population), 25% is significant. It is believed that this wealthy Jews play a very important role generally in U.S. policy toward Israel and specifically in U.S. presidential election: The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) declared that pro-Israeli groups and individuals have donated more than $ 845,000 to presidential candidates in 2008. In 2004 presidential campaign pro- Israeli interests contributed at least $ 6.1 million to federal candidates and parties. Washington post had concluded that about $ 56.8 million have been contributed by pro-Israel individual and groups since 1990.

But here a question will arise: $ 845,000 or $ 6.1 or even $ 56.8 million in 15 or 16 years is not that significant at all if we compare it with the total campaign expanse which is dozens of millions of dollars and the candidates have to raise enormous amount of money to finance their campaigns. These tables illustrate the amount of money contributed by PACs and individuals in both republican and democrat parties: (the tables are taken from Jewish virtual library which should be taken into consideration, the title is pro-Israel contribution).

Analysis

One the most important problem that the researcher of this paper faced was lack of authentic evidence and information; the tables and statistics had significant discrepancy when they were compared. The reason for this discrepancy and contradictions is that these sorts of information are dependent on the writer’s affiliation and tendencies and making distinction between the fake and genuine statistics and information is difficult.

As it was mentioned nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans are Jews, and this rate is significant if it is compared the Jew’s total population in America. It can be said that wealthy Jews are very influential in American economy and many important cooperation and companies are dominated by them. The Jews are also very influential in American media including CNN, CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time magazine due to their wealth and power. In one of the most recent polls reported by Gallup in Feb. 2007, 58% of Americans sympathies with Israeli and 20% with Palestinians, which shows the great influence of what is propagated by media. This influence is seen in other important arenas such as academia and think thanks which shape the public opinion. So, it can be argued that American people are growing up in an atmosphere that is highly sympathetic toward Israeli and Jews; and their perception about the Jews is manipulated and biased, and any critic is silenced or charged as anti-Semitist. Jimmy Carter has written about this reluctance to criticize Israel policy:

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations – but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. …

A Biblical Israel

Another important point is the emergence of the power of Evangelical Christianity or Christian Zionism in America. Evangelists feel an ideological attachment to the Jews and esp. Israel. A recent Poll found 59% of U.S. evangelicals believe Israel is fulfillment of Bible’s prophecy; The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believe God tells them to support Israel — more than six times the world’s Jewish population (God’s Warriors, Christiane Amanpour), this great population can be crucial for the outcome of the election. They also raise money to support Jewish settlements in Israel. Evangelist Americans are becoming more powerful in recent years and many of them are active members in The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many important political figures in America including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, **** Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, and Barack Obama… had attained and address in their conferences.

Conclusion

It is a common belief that the wealthy Jews are playing a very important and influential role in U.S. policy but this financial helps are not unilateral: “total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $ 140 billion in 2003 dollars.” (Greenbook website). Or “Israel receives about $3 billion Dollars annually and is one the largest recipient of American aids since World War II.” (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). So the relationship between Israel and America is a symbiotic one in which the two parties gain some advantages, though there are lots of debates about who benefits more.

Many observers maintain that the Jews are playing an important role in the executive branch due to their financial contribution to presidential campaigns and their high rate of turn out in elections.

But can we argue that the only reason for American President’s support for Israel is Jews financial contribution? As it was illustrated by tables and statistics the amount of money which is donated by pro-Israeli groups are not significant when it is compared with the total sum; on the other hand the sum of money contributed by these groups are not very authentic or exact, so it makes it very difficult to draw a conclusion based on the released data and statistics.

As it was mentioned 25% of the Forbes 400 lists of richest Americans are Jews, which is significant compared to Jew’s 3% population. These wealthy Jews can be very influential in important companies and co operations, in mass media and academic centers. What Bill Clinton said about fighting and dying for Israel was said after his two- term presidency, or what his paster told him as a young man was long before that. Clinton, Bush and other American politicians were grown up in the society which was and is under the influence of Jews hegemony: this is the media that teaches and influences ordinary Americans, and this academia that educates the elites. And no voice can be heard when there is any critic about the Israel policy, so it is very natural that ordinary Americans or even the more educated or the elites feel more sympathy with the Israel than the Arab Palestinians. Perhaps it can be said that the Evangelical Christian or Christian Zionists are the result of these sort of teaching and educating; “There are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists,” the former Democratic vice presidential candidate said. “The support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel’s security and strength and to America’s security and strength.” (God’s Warriors, Christiane Amanpour).

As the researcher of this paper I personally believe that the only reason for Americans support for Israel can not be just the financial power of the Jews; there is a high moral commitment and ideological attachment in American political leaders toward Israel. But it can be argued that indirectly again this is the money who talks: this is the money that can dominate the media, education and the academia and will educate the future leaders of Americas the way it wants.

About 2.5% up to 3% of Americans are Jews, which is near to 5 to 6 million people of the American population. The American Jews do not have the same religious affiliation and they are not homogenous: their population consists of Orthodoxies, Conservatives and Reformists. So as it is clear all Jews are not considered to be extremist. But a poll in 2005 showed that 82% of American Jews supported Israel and 63% said that they support it “strongly”. These strong supporters tend to support division of Jerusalem and building a security fence, and naturally the same people would support a president with high commitment to Israeli affairs.

“Bill, I think you’re going to be President someday. I think you’ll do a good job, but there’s one thing above all you must remember: God will never forgive you if you don’t stand by Israel.”

Never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because ‘the lobby’ wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because ‘the lobby’ opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence. They do. But they don’t distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests. (Denis B. Ross former U.S. ambassador and peace negotiator under Bill Clinton.)

Kansieo.com

Barack Obama – The Best Candidate for US Foreign Policy

Posted on by
Reply
Barbara Clark asked:




Most people would probably agree that any President of the United States needs skills in foreign diplomacy. The urgency of this necessity today cannot be overstated. Our relations with the world have been damaged by the current administration. We can no longer take the “bully” approach that the present administration has often exerted when it didn’t get its way. This is precisely one of the reasons that we have lost respect in the eyes of many from other countries. The “bully” approach doesn’t work: it alienates us from nations that once were our allies, creates new enemies, strengthens existing anti-American sentiments and creates fear and intimidation which can lead itself to more conflicts, including war. We clearly need a leader with the strength to negotiate, lead, inspire and work effectively with the diversity of today’s governments and their leaders. We need a leader who can bring back respect to our country, while pursuing the resolution of conflicts, and promoting peace through cooperative and collaborative efforts. We need a leader who can communicate effectively with cultures different from our own. I believe that the best leader for our country is Barack Obama.

I’ve heard some people claim that Barack Obama’s has less foreign policy experience than his opponents. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. In my opinion, Barack Obama is the only candidate with the experience that counts when it’s needed the most: in times of disagreements, conflicts and misunderstandings.

So what are the characteristics and qualities that Barack Obama has to lead us in foreign affairs? First of all, he has a willingness to sit down and listen with those who are on opposing sides. This is a giant first step in opening a door that has been too often closed by the current administration. He will not try to “bully” the parties into accepting the notion of “our way or the highway” notion of politics. This will help restore respect for our country by starting a dialogue, which is a necessary first step.

Secondly, he has the experience in effectively bringing together diverse points of view for a common cause, His leadership as one of the sponsors of a bipartisan bill in the Illinois State Senate on the Gift Ban Act (a major ethics bill) is no small accomplishment! In addition, his campaign clearly shows that he is able to deliver a message of hope for people from diverse walks of life: young and old, rich and poor, across all the major political parties, racial and ethnic lines, urban and rural, and the working class and the elite.

Third, he has the cultural competencies needed to diplomatically lead our country and the world. As an international educator for over 25 years, I know that a significant experience living, studying or working abroad can open our minds and hearts to others so very different than ourselves. It can introduce us to new views, behaviors and attitudes while developing skills that can effectively communicate with these differences. Strong, significant experiences abroad develop strong cultural competencies in a person that allows one to communicate effectively across cultures. This paves the way for diplomatic leadership. The same can be true for people growing up in bicultural and biracial families. Barack Obama has all of these life experiences.

It is precisely the area of significant cross-cultural experience where I I believe that Barack Obama stands out from the other other Presidential candidates. Barack’s foreign experiences and with diverse cultures here in the U.S. was gained as he was growing up and over significant periods of time. This is different than someone who has visited a lot of foreign countries, perhaps in the political or touristic context. While exposure to other countries and cultures can be instrumental in helping us to truly see another person’s point of view, the context and the length of time in a foreign country help determine one’s ability to learn the skills to effectively deal with the situations that arise due to differences. Living in a foreign country exposes a person to the everyday life of that place, even if one lives in homes with other Americans or with other foreigners. It forces us to be exposed to other points of views and to learn valuable cross-cultural skills that can improve our perceptions about what is really happening, improve communication and overall understanding. Barack’s experience in this area truly shines above all the rest.

His father was from Kenya, married to a white woman from Kansas. Barack grew up in Hawaii, and spent several years in Indonesia. While there, he attended school, where significant social skills are developed. In addition, he is bi-cultural, biracial and his stepfather was Indonesian as well. All of these life experiences truly make him stand out from the usual political candidates we are used to seeing and are one of the main reasons I believe he is the best candidate for the U.S. Presidency. He has demonstrated skills in cross-cultural competencies, which give me hope for real change.

Finally, Barack Obama supports causes that are in sound agreement with international diplomacy and understanding. He was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, at a time when it was not so politically popular to do so. Currently, he is one of several co-sponsors of the bipartisan Senator Paul Simon Bill Foundation (S. 991) in the Senate. The bills seeks to establish a foundation in the late Senator Simon’s name to promote study abroad programs for U.S. students.

As an international educator, it is well known in the field the importance that both bringing foreign students and scholars to the U.S. and sending U.S. students abroad for study play in our national policy. Many of the foreign students and scholars develop positive images of the U.S. and go home to be leaders in their fields, if not their countries. U.S. students learn valuable cross-cultural skills and knowledge from their study abroad experiences which make them valuable and competitive leaders. We need more international educational exchange for the future of our planet, and the younger, the better.

As one of the co-sponsors of this bill, Barack understands the importance that international educational exchange plays in our planet’s future. I am proud to see his name attached to that bill, and know deep in my heart that he truly understands the importance of international education as part of a sound, foreign affairs policy.

We need more leaders like Barack Obama: leaders who can lead diplomatically, intelligently and respectfully in all kinds of conditions. Won’t you join me in supporting him on February 5th?

Website content

American Foreign Policy, Conspiracy or Cabal

Posted on by
Reply
Norton Nowlin asked:




In glibly talking about the necessary withdrawal of American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen from Iraq, Democratic presidential candidates are refraining from speaking directly about the faults of U.S. foreign policy and the presumed plenary power of the post modern president to wield an imperial scepter around the world. While, on one hand, calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama maintain that some troops, thousands of them, should remain in Iraq and, generally, in the Middle East to enforce U.S, foreign policy. This, probably, also means their support for the establishing permanent U.S. military bases throughout Iraq. Obama has gone as far as to advocate invading Pakistan. This is certainly not a constitutional approach to campaigning for the office of U.S. chief executive, that is, if these candidates’ ultimate motive is to maintain, and, if possible, increase, the current level of illicit power exercised by the U.S. executive branch.

Numerous federal officers, and a few motion pictures, have referred to the American president as the most powerful person on earth. This is, however, not true. The Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive Branch are essentially coequal in power. The only greater powers presently wielded by the President, other than those conferred upon the Executive Branch by the U.S. Constitution, are those which have been wrongly relinquished by Congress and delegated illegally to the Executive Branch without amending the Constitution to make such relinquishment legal. The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold such unconstitutional delegation of authority have added pseudo-credibility to the process.

If New York’s Hillary Clinton, Ohio’s Barack Obama, South Carolina’s John Edwards, or the other Democratic candidates are to embrace the purely constitutional role of the Executive Branch, in which Article 2 executive power is vested only in a President of the United States, they must renounce the imperial foreign policy agenda which has been pursued by every President since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Recently, I had an email conversation with retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to former Secretary of State Colen Powell, in which Wilkerson spoke candidly of his personal view on the capacity of the President to conspiratorially plan and execute illegal crimes against the people of the United States and the U.S. Constitution. He said, “Power management at the level of the presidency of the world’s most powerful nation is hardly reducible to na?ve theories of (criminal) conspiracy, however much satisfaction such theorizing may give to uninformed minds.”

Wilkerson is publicly free with his use of the word “cabal” in describing the “Bush-Cheney Cabal” that has been in power since before 9/11. He has gone on record to say, on national television, that “A ‘Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal’ ran U.S. foreign policy for a president not versed in international relations and not too much interested.”

The “Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary” defines cabal as a conspiratorial group of plotters, or a secret plot or scheme. Yet, he deigns calling a cabal a conspiracy, which puzzles me about Wilkerson’s greater regard for political correctness than the ***** truth. I perceive Wilkerson as a prime example of the “supposedly” educated professional career soldier who has “supposedly” studied government independent of personal bias in order to arrive at such conclusion about presidential arrogance. This is, perhaps, the basis for his, rather, colored perception of Richard M. Nixon and Watergate. In his apologetic email, decrying my use of the word conspiracy, suggesting deliberate executive branch involvement in the WTC and Pentagon bombings on 9/11, he said,

“What I have learned that is applicable here is that arguments such as those you espouse do not leave room for rational debate. Watergate was as much incompetence as conspiracy; Iran-Contra (Oliver North lying to Congress and Ronald Reagon’s denied complicity) could well be construed as an executive branch reaction to an overreach in legislative oversight; the Mexican War, was, as you say, based upon farcical (absurd) evidence – but very well supported by the American people (one of the reasons Lincoln lost his House seat), and was anything but a conspiracy unless you conclude in that conspiracy the bulk of the people who were clearly complicit; and Vietnam was a tortured process of utter incompetence, lies, deceit, and subterfuge played out over a number years (14) with conspiratorial overtone.”

Wilkerson represents himself as an authority on U.S. political history, but has failed to realize that American historians, since 1975, have attributed the Mexican War of 1846 to an almost single cause, the political hubris, expansionist mandate, and illegally covert executive actions of President James Polk. Letters, memos, and diaries of General, and later President, Zachary Taylor, cabinet officers under Polk, and the papers of Polk, himself, recount the conspiracy between Polk and Taylor to create a war with Mexico. Polk’s personal mandate to increase the size of the United States, by taking from Mexico, by any expeditious means available, the great amount of land which was ceded by Mexico to the United States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was the motivation behind the conspiracy that took the lives of nearly 2,000 American soldiers and marines.

When Taylor was summoned to the White House, in February of 1846, he was ordered by Polk to create a war with Mexico. And much like the traditionally accepted U.S historical perception of the behavior of the legendary Davy Crockett, at the Alamo, that he died in the 1836 battle swinging his flint-lock rifle, Old Betsy, the historical perception that the Mexicans started the fray, in April 1846, which led to an attack on U.S. Cavalry forces by the Mexican Army, had been supported by American historians until the honest Mexican account was studied. It seems that, according to numerous journals of credible Mexican officers, Crockett hid from the Mexicans at the Alamo when he knew that, if caught, he would be killed. According to the accounts, after the battle he pretended to be a diplomatic tourist until he was discovered, captured, and shot by a Mexican firing squad.

It also appears, from credible Mexican accounts, that Zachary Taylor, and his heavily armed cavalry, went to the Rio Grande, built a fort on the side of the River claimed by the Mexican government, and on April 24, 1846, fired the first shots on a Mexican cavalry patrol, killing a cavalryman and forcing the Mexicans to return fire. The same account was recorded in numerous journals of Mexican soldiers who witnessed what actually happened. Taylor, however, returned and report to Congress that the Mexicans had drawn first-blood through attacking the American fort. James Polk then fostered a press propaganda blitz, which published the great lie before the American public, inciting public war frenzy, before he went before Congress to demand a declaration of war against Mexico. Hence, Wilkerson’s claim that most of the American public were ignorantly in favor of the war was basically true. Had the people known the truth, they would have probably demanded Polk’s impeachment. But the ends of conspiracy played out in favor of the conspirators, and a deadly war took the lives of over 12,000 men and women.

What I see as the bottom line, in Wilkerson’s response, is a work of sophistic explanation, attempting to purport, in effect, that the average U.S. voter does not have the insight and intelligence to judge the power, and the acts wielded by, the standing U.S. President. While I do have a master’s degree in political science, Wilkerson is contending that it basically requires advanced degrees, and years of federal government service, to be capable of rightly dividing presidential behavior as right or wrong, and truth from lies. Wilkerson is a good example of the Samuel P. Huntington model of the professional soldier, who poses as the fiery implementer of the foreign policy decisions of career politicians, at the expense of constitutional limitations. The oath that Wilkerson, and all other commissioned military officers, took contained a sworn duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath does it say that jeopardy to the Constitution is to be determined only by higher ranking officers, and that the singular duty of the sworn officer is to obey the dictates of that person’s superior officers and the U.S. President. In a nutshell, if Polk, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Reagon, Clinton, and GHB could get away with deliberate conspiracy, through the efforts of the military and the intelligence communities, why wouldn’t George W. Bush try to do the same as his predecessors? I believe that sad history clearly promotes the ends of rational debate, if the irrational person, denying the possibility of conspiracy, is willing to discuss the matter logically.

When a U.S. President goes behind the backs of Congress, and the American electorate, to secretly plot illegal schemes, and commit acts contrary to existing constitutional and federal law, such as unilaterally extending U.S. troops into police actions for imperial foreign policy purposes and establishing treaties and international agreements without the will of the people, that particular U.S. President has broken the law and should be punished. Thus, when one American GI is killed in an unnecessary military conflict perpetrated by an American President, I believe that President is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, if not premeditated murder. Such death is a regular result of the king-like type of power presently wielded by the executive branch, the power to invade sovereign nation-states merely to obtain and use their natural resources. The next President will inherit these unconstitutional powers unless the current Democratic candidates publicly express a sincere willingness to abrogate extra-constitutional executive power-grabbing.

Yet, Donald Sutherland, in his role as Speaker of the House in the television series “Commander in Chief,” made a scripted statement that “a person who seeks the presidency is seeking ultimate power. It’s all about having the power, and a person not wanting that supreme power should not be in the White House.” This is a paraphrasing of the rehearsed line, but it contains a gigantic truth that cannot be denied. As I have said before in numerous essays, the “Federalist Papers,” written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, were all about restraints on the executive branch. The American colonists had already dealt with a tyrant-king, George III, in a bloody revolution, and they did not want to see another tyrant rise up in the form of a U.S. President. To exemplify this, the Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces is not mentioned in Section II, which comprises the very narrow powers of the executive branch. If the framers had wanted to give the President the authority to control the movements of land and naval forces, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that they would have listed that power in Article 2 instead of Article 1? Something very perturbing is the sad fact that since 2003, no member of Congress has even attempted to address on the House or Senate floor, the reasons behind Congress’ relinquishment of its Article 1, Section 8 power to make rules for governing the military.

I can plainly see why 75 percent of the people of Vermont want to secede from the federal union of states. The government of the United States has been counter-productive to the welfare of it citizens for a long time. In the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which I memorized as young child, several national objectives are succinctly mentioned. First, the establishing of justice, Second, insuring domestic tranquility, Third, providing for the common defense (not offense), Fourth, promoting the general welfare, and Fifth, the insuring of the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. No mention is made in the Preamble of a foreign policy agenda, which would take trillions of dollars of tax money to maintain. It would seem that the Framers were much more concerned with what would transpire domestically among the people of the United States, than what would transpire outside the country. The American republic did not begin, in 1789, with an imperial agenda. A fledgling American republican form of government was morphed and mutated into such a distorted regime. Shouldn’t those individuals aspiring to the office of President, rather, emulate the goals and aspirations of those who designed and wrote the glorious U.S. Constitution? I should think so.

US Foreign Policy

A Review on "The American Age, US Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad"

Posted on by
Reply
Azadeh Ghahghaei asked:




This book mainly covers three presidents of the United States in the 20th Century; starting with Roosevelt and ending with Wilson. What has happened during the first two decades of the century is narrated and presidents’ policies and international conflicts are discussed. There are some elements which are common among US presidents that we will go through it later.

Theodore Roosevelt was the most important and most acceptable president of the century. Roosevelt was from an aristocratic family and loved killing especially Indians. His justification was to remove inferior race and people, and he extremely believed that use of force by civilized people will improve human character; the idea that seems emerging again in US policies by George Bush. He meant war with less industrialized nations mainly to maintain order in different region even if they were far from the US. He was growing in the age of post- 1875 depression. He was very concerned about reactionaries abroad and was looking for order in Asian and Latin America. As one may understand, he was a ****** and believed in the whites’ mission to civilize and rule over other people. To maintain order, he used to accept all option even war. We can say that he also practiced the savage wars of order. He was the president who declared and determined US foreign policy for the century that was “US wants no more land”, now, US seeks market abroad. His reputation is for his creative idea of “dollar diplomacy”. The point that is very interesting is that to justify US economic desire for dominance, he used to think and say that US goods and values make people of the world happy.

Roosevelt came to power when presidential power has increased over the congress abilities. He strongly insisted that only president can conduct foreign policy; thus this change in foreign policy and presidential power was fit for Roosevelt. In sending troops to Santo Domingo, TR easily ignored congress. This theme and notion is increasing again in the US foreign policy when President Bush thinks that he can send more troops to Iraq even if Congress do not cooperate US administration. Beyond the order that can define US foreign policy in this century, opportunity is another theme that can not be forgotten, especially economic opportunity, US was searching for places to invest and trade. Very much like today’s US president TR did not hesitate to use military force to achieve the goals and guarantee opportunity. Lafeber thinks that we can name 20th century the “imperial presidency” that I think even 21st century started with this imperialism but it will not continue as Bush has made so many mistakes that US political system will not bear anymore.

He did a great deal to the United States by constructing the Panama Canal. His main obstacle to do so was to break the treaty in which Britain had the chance of partnership in canal projects. Due to some conflicts in Africa and elsewhere, US-British relation enhanced greatly; US sided with British against Boers and British sided with US against Canada on Alaska. To begin the construction he was willing to have Panamanians revolted in 1903 against Colombia; a fight that US made greatly use of it with securing Panamanians independence.

Monroe Doctrine was another concern of him. There were two threats for Monroe Doctrine; first, Germany and its militarily and second; Revolutions in Caribbean. There was always a threat by Europeans to Roosevelt policies. To stop threats of revolution in Caribbean, he went to Central America. “Policing” was the term used by TR to keep order and to civilize people. It is necessary to add that this policing has repeated in the US foreign policy several times. TR gradually fell behind the Monroe Doctrine on Latin America for five reasons; Monroe doctrine supported Latin America revolutions, Monroe believed in nonintervention in Latin America, Monroe sees US economic traditional and at home, Monroe Doctrine sees no use of military power esp. in Latin America and Monroe urged abstention.

Among the policies TR perused, Asia had a significant status. To reach the peak of world power, US should address cheapest labor and greatest market of China. So US should build transportation to carry its goods to Asia. In foreign policy, TR supported Japan and suppressed Russia trying to control Korea and colonize Manchuria. In 1905 fight erupted between Japan and Russia; America tried to mediate the relation and helped them sign a peace treaty in September 1905. As a result of the treaty both Japan and Russia promised to respect China’s territorial integrity. At the same year, some Chinese boycott American goods as a result of American immigration laws; lots of uproars and economic challenges happened. Japan was the next US challenge after China; Japan closed off Korea to US interests and began to move to Manchuria itself. TR in order to manifest US power to especially Japan sent a fleet around the world. Finally, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending Russo-Japanese war.

William Howard Taft came to presidency from 19019 to 1913. He was not an absolute follower of Roosevelt; thus a catastrophe happened in China and US interests. Lack of energy and personal character of being cool were the real causes of Taft’s failure. He favored traditional policies in foreign policy; created Department of Labor, antitrust movements against big corporations and created income tax. Taft clung to open door in Asia, order in Latin America and dollar diplomacy claiming that enough money secures. He used to reject TR’s military forces using the growing capital resources in Asia and Latin America. Dollar diplomacy creates orderly societies by developing the unindustrialized nations and make profit of American investments. Taft’s successor, Woodrow Wilson, pulled out America out of consortium- Taft urged- in 1913.

During 1906, a debate on US need to go and find a market of Latin America emerged. It deals with an idea that America’s North and South are serving each other; south provides raw materials and north has the manufacturers. Fear that Cubans were acquiring revolutionary habits was assumed to be a point of concern for US administration. Dollar diplomacy failed in the north as well as the Far East. Generally we can say that US tries to apply its power outward in Asia and Canada with a focus to have open door policy in Africa. US arbitration movement could not prevent the outrage of stop WWI or prevent great powers like US from using force to put down revolutions. Most US presidents in early 20th century- McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson- desired order in Latin America, Africa and Asia and even Europe; revolutions began to spread around the world. US was going to replace Great Britain as the super power in the 20th century.

Wilson coming to power faced blasts of revolutions in different places of the world. His major policies include internationalism and moralism dedicated to democracy what is practiced and stated by US for implementing any policies in Middle East. Wilson was trained as a lawyer, turned to academic career and was the president of Princeton University. He was a stern Calvinist and belonged to Progressives. Wilson believed in the role government should play in business. Presidential power had increased after 1898 war; he implied some reforms in congress in 1913-16. He liked to decide before congress paying little attention to congress and public opinion. Democracy is an issue Wilson deals with enormously, he believes that people can not be given democracy, he doubt Filipinos were fit for self-government; American goods and ideas prepare them for democracy. This idea is not rare in the American mindset; Americans assume themselves as the source of democracy for other nations. An agreement in Wilson administration was made to make partnership with Britain and Germany to drive back Russia.

WWI ruined all Wilson’s dreams about America. US should control Japan in order to have both open door and freedom of action in China; not only by war but through financial agreements and cooperation. Like other US president especially George Bush, Wilson to prevent revolutions and achieve economic expansion used military interventions. In 1910- 1911, some riots in Mexico to overthrow Diaz- a dictator- with the help of Mederno happened. US intervened and planned a democratic election in order to prevent other revolutions in Latin America. Huerta in Mexico holds election with the help of British and won it and certainly it did not please Wilson. Overthrowing Huerta government and cutting foreign interests grow as the important aim of Wilson. Finally, Firing broke and Huerta removed and Carranza assumed the power. Interestingly, Wilson tried to remove Carranza as well. Nothing was gained by Wilson as he finally after harsh struggles was forced to come to terms with Carranza and tried to stabilize and democratize Mexican revolutions

WWI was a turning point in the history of the United State. US planned to pay little attention to Balkan events and there was a consensus that US should be neutral in this fight. US stayed officially neutral but Wilson advisors were supporting British in reality. Several attacks were made by Germans against US forces in the region but US did it best not to interfere and enter the war. US agreed on giving credits to Europe and gave it first to the Allies. The only thing US could do was to play the role of a mediator so that it can keep the balance of power in Europe. War discourse was spreading.

Wilson endeavored to conduct a very moderate foreign policy; to balance his policies, Wilson protested against British for interception of US mails. Meanwhile, Europeans fearing the US economic growth after WWI signed a treaty in which they agreed upon higher tariffs and controlling markets to fight US competition. Wilson being president for the second term attempted to end the war but it failed. Wilson felt that US is about to enter war; he went to congress to talk about postwar objectives and peace and announce US entrance in the conflict. War resolution was proved in congress on April 6, 1917. Finally US entered WWI.

This was the story of the United States in the beginning of its most important century. What is common among these three presidents and US administration as a whole is a desire to be the savior and superman for the world while benefiting its own political and economic interests. All believe in taking democracy to unindustrialized nations whether by the means of war as there is a belief that these inferior nations lack the capacity of gaining democracy. Policing is another common heritage of US foreign policy. US seeks economic power in the 20th century but now what is most important to Americans beyond the economic issues is the political and cultural hegemony which is sometimes interpreted as imperialism and now the victims are Middle Eastern nations and Muslims.

Kansieo.com

Conservatives, why did Bush think that he put the Iraq War on his personal Credit Card?

Posted on by
Reply
Poopy Pants asked:

He is as surprised as you that the expenses for the war has been added to the United States Deficit.

I guess he does not understand that he does not have a 3 Trillion Dollar limit on his American Express Card.

Rich people think money is free.

War On Iraq