Under the Clinton [imperium singulare] administration our first Secretary of State was Warren Christopher, he was the deputy Secretary of State in the Carter administration, which asserted over arguably the worst foreign policy in Americas two hundred years. Not being satisfied with the Carter calamity, Clinton apparently wanted more of : Panama, Iran, Iraq, and all the other failures of the Carter administration. One would hope that after Johnson, and Carter, Americans would have learned an important lesson about southern Democrats, and foreign policy. Apparently not Clinton is worse than both, having produced one foreign policy fiasco after another.

In crass terms one must conclude that with the tenure of Madeline Halfbright, America's foreign policy has been surrendered to the UN and Israel. Clinton's understanding of geography, and world history being non existent, his entire group of intimate advisors being either Jewish or under their sway. Unfortunately that is only the beginning, the Clinton cabinet, jointly, has a military experience which can be tabulated in minutes. Added to this is the fact that the largest single group of cabinet employees are attorneys. As you read, the White House now employs over 100 defense attorneys, [up from 4 under Bush] costing taxpayers millions of dollars per year. More is spent [illegally with taxpayer funds] defending the president for personal peccadilloes, and treason, then on advisers for foreign policy. Lawyers and academicians which represent the overwhelming majority of Clinton's remaining Cabinet members, are the absolutely worst people to manage our affairs. Because lawyers are taught in an adversary form of approaching problems, and academicians because they are by academia constricted to a herd mentality of conformisem to existing dogma. These two facts. As well as the Jewishness of these people, are the primary reason that we appear to have given our foreign policy decisions over to others. Before the JDL starts to scream, never again, or anti-Semitic, I should like to point out that in relationship to our population, Jews are the most grossly over-represented percentage of citizens in executive branch, as well as in management of the media. I would further point out that these are merely facts, and that they most certainly impact on Americas foreign policy.

No other issue epitomizes our debacle more than Bosnia. Our Balkans policy is non-sencical at best. This miserable part of the world has been in perpetual conflict for about 1,500 years. Thomas Sowell, a black sociologist, had the best appraisal for U. S. involvement in the Balkans: " Worst of all, we are preparing to send young men out to die so that old men who mismanaged the UN and NATO policies in the Balkans will not look like the jackasses they are". The United States has no vital interests there: no political interests, no social interests, and no economic interests. Except for Nikolas Tesla (1856-1943) nothing of any value whatever has come out of the Balkans. The Balkans is a European problem let them solve it! "If another world war were to start it will probably be in the Balkans" was a quote made by Bismarck in 1897. We have the involvement of among others, Iran, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Armenia, Russia, Serbia, Islam, and Christianity. All required is someone to light the fuse, and we will be right in the middle of it all. It appears that the Ilegitimus has finally found the fuse in Kosovo.

After the demise of the cold war and our competition for world domination vis-à-vis the Soviets, the reason for foreign aid has evaporated. With Russia bankrupt our competition is gone. No-one at State has to date figured this out. Worse yet is the fact not understood that it is not possible to buy friends. With the exception of Israel every recipient of foreign aid votes against us at almost every turn in the UN general assembly. For over forty years we have been squandering our children inheritance, without any benefit to anyone. The largest percentages of this aid is wasted on political and personal benefits for those in power of the nations to whom we grant this largess. In his 1998 trip to Africa our president has granted billions for education in Africa while our own children are internationally rated as number 19 in mathematics, 16th in science, and 35th in literacy. The aid we grant might be considered an advantage to American industry, in that one would assume that nations receiving such benefit would purchase American products. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my considerable experience in the export sector I found that the nations we give the most in aid to are our worst customers. This is decidedly the case in Israel where I have been told in numerous cases, "we prefer to buy German products". When in fact you land in Israel, the first thing you see is Mercedes Benz buses, cabs and cars, and it goes on from there. Food products are imported from Europe, industrial machinery from Japan and Germany, and incidentals from Italy and Greece. India is no better, tariffs for American products are so high as to make sales of American products a rarity, only if it's not available from any-place else is an American product even considered. The Jewishness of our state department ensures us the hatred of millions of Muslims, in fact we can consider our foreign policy anti-Islam as a matter of course. In today's real world there are over one billion adherents to Islam and less than ten million Jews. I do not mean to promote an anti-Israel policy, just some even handed impartial policy. Benefits of our largess to Israel of this are non existent, except for the fact that even mild chritisisem of Israel or our policy toward it, or a reduction of foreign aid to it will get any politician un-elected. The nation is a socialist theocracy, which without American foreign aid would have collapsed, and changed into a republic years ago, thus they would have through necessity had to forge a foreign policy of reasonable accommodation with their neighbors.

Two nations which display a decided anti-American trade bias are France and Japan. They equally have a arrogance, viewing themselves as grand nations, both think that all others are inferior to them. Both restrict trade and may be said foster sanctions against American products and producers. While our bureaucrats at the State Department are busy drinking French wine and eating Sushi they base policy not on trade but on personal snobbish opinion. The fact of the matter is that trade is the criterion upon which foreign policy should be based, not politics. Our practice of forging our foreign policy based on political considerations, places the cart before the horse. This is more so the fact since the end of the cold war. The possibility that our State Department under current leadership would even consider trade as a factor is non-existent. People trained in diplomacy look down their collected noses at anyone involved in production distribution and manufacture. The sad thing being that it
should be the other way around. It is producers that allow us a high standard of living not bureaucratic diplomats.

With the New World Order's policy of "Free Trade" we are rapidly sinking into the abyss of third world status. This "Free Trade" policy has become the Modus-oparandi of our government in their formulation of foreign policy as well as trade. It is based on the miss-conception that unequal economic units can trade on an equal footing. Not so. Only economically equal units can foster a free trade policy. A contrary act induces the economic degradation of the superior partner to the advantage of the inferior one. But then that is the ultimate plan of the New World Order is it not?

All this bring us then to a major factor in current foreign politics; which is, that the entire presidential cabinet, has not in the last six years, included one single executive from the producing sector. Even Secretaries of Commerce have all been either corrupt political hacks, or from non producing sectors. In the long run this will prove to be a disaster for our nation. Our foreign policy is based on a single leg " FREE TRADE".

This is the most fallacious concept ever developed. It benefits only one group, international financiers. Many many pundits would have you believe that as a consumer you will benefit through lower consumer prices. Ralph Nader comes to mind. This argument is moot, because it is in basic conceptualization is wrong. If the playingfield was level they would in fact have a good argument, but it is not. How can an American producer compete with a Mexican producer? Consider the following factors: OSHA, Social Security, Environmental protection laws, Fair labor standards laws, minimum wage laws, among others, all applicable in the USA, and not applied in Mexico. That unfortunately is far from everything. Consider the average Mexican blue collar workers take home pay at $1.44. That's about one fourth of our minimum wage. American producers are left no options, either they close down or they move production to a lower production cost location. The unhappy alternative is gradual bankruptcy. All this is confirmed by a report issued by Challenger, Gray, & Christmas a prominent outplacemente firm. In February of 1998 we lost 43,919 jobs bringing the total to 268,966 in the last five months. Since the inception of NAFTA over 4 million jobs have been lost. Projections indicate this trend will continue. [loss of manufacturing jobs] . We are currently losing about 400,000 manufacturing jobs per year. The good news being that we are creating approximately 200,000 jobs per month. The downside of it is that most of these jobs are in the service sector and pay considerably lower wages. Statistics as to exactly how much lower paying these new jobs are seem for some strange reason unavailable from anywhere. Our American foreign policy should be based on our national interests, our primary interest being trade. What has taken place in our state department is that all decisions on international policy are being driven by politics. This is backwards. International policy should be driven by two considerations, first the availability of raw materials and second export trade. All other [political] considerations will fall into their proper place on their own if the previous paradigm is followed.

The worst part of the formula is our trade representatives, who in their negotiations seem always to deal from weakness. If you have a royal flush [everyone want's to sell on our markets] then why play poker as if you had one pair ? The fact that America unilaterally has the worst trade representatives is evidenced and compiled by their awful trade treaties, that they inflict upon us, and the fact that other nations view our delegations as an easy push over.

China is the most populous nation in the world. Along with the Arabs they are the most individually friendly people I have met anywhere. Nevertheless, it is the only nation still targeting their ICBMs on the United States. An ability which has been substantially improved under the Clinton doctrine of "give the Chicoms anything they want". To be sure it only takes minutes to retarget [Russian missiles] but China targets us in primary programming. In addition high Chinese officials have even warned about a possible strike on LA in spring of 1998. Worst of all Clinton approved after the fact for Loral to export missile targeting technology to China, this after Schwarz their CEO gave the presidential campaign $ 100,000.00. While they export billions of dollars worth of goods to us, much of it produced by slave labor, we continue to grant "Most Favored Nations Status" to them. While their internal policies are quite frankly none of our business, it does strike me as peculiar that with a trade deficit in their favor of over $40 billion per year, our trade representatives are unable to obtain better terms in disposition to America. After all there is nothing that we purchase from China that is not available elsewhere, at similar cost.

The international political and trade policy which we should have is: Teddy Roosevelt's "Carry a big stick and walk softly". We should mind our own business, avoid foreign entanglements, and have foreign policy dictated by a good trade policy. America is not the provider or policeman for the world. A good leader does so by example, not by interference. A good start to reasonable policies would be to fire about two thirds of all the bureaucrats employed at the State department.

Page URL: http://www.kriegbooks.com/american_foreign_policy.html
Host Web site: http://www.kriegbooks.com/