Modern Foreign Policy and The Monroe Doctrine

    

    The Monroe Doctrine, which for many years served as an important guideline for American Foreign Policy, is still occasionally followed by our government with foreign issues and relations  today, but most of the time different methods are used. One of our main foreign policy problems that has existed within in the last week is the Nuclear Deal slip with Iran. A newspaper article written by David E. Sanger, Michael R. Gordon and Peter Baker, entitled A Nuclear Deal for U.S. and Iran Slips Away Again explains the situation, how similar ones have affected our country over the years, and our current tactics for tackling the issue.

     A day of deal-making in attempt to push back Tehran’s nuclear program recently occurred between secretary of state John Kerry, and the opposing Iranian representative in Oman. America had been waiting many years for a compromise to be made on this subject, but foreign minister Mohammad Java Zarif seemed to have no intentions of compromise during this meeting. Kerry became enraged when discovering Zarif had nothing new or helpful to offer. Kerry had no desire to leave without a deal that would prevent Iran from producing enough fuel for making a bomb within the next year. Further attempts of success only led to argument, and nothing was arranged that day. The solution deadline came around, and no last-minute deals were made; only the decision to extend the deadline seven months. According to the article, the fact that both men were so passionately engaged in their discussion led many people to the conclusion that if the final decision in making a deal had been left to them, it would have been made rather than the choice to waste another seven months. If they had the ability to make any arrangement of sorts, they would have found a way, however, Zarif had Iran’s supreme ruler’s power hanging over him while Kerry faced the chance of making president Obama appear weak, and Israel claiming the deal a poor one.  The deal that could potentially solve so many conflicts between the U.S and the middle east has been out of Obama’s reach for the duration of his presidency. It was a big step just for Zarif and Kerry first began negotiating. Last November it was said that Iran’s nuclear activity would be on pause in exchange for lifted sanctions. Unfortunately, what the U.S was being told by Zarif was not what Iran was revealing to the public.  Zarif stated that everything was indeed on pause but no dismantling took place, leaving the U.S a bit uneasy. Exchanges continued to occur, since Americans were demanding an answer, but Iran would only agree to making a deal after midterm elections. The offer from the U.S was to limit Iran’s number of centrifuges to 1500, while a side-deal with Russia was up in the air with Iran anyway, meaning they could eventually have up to 4500. Iran refused this, and no deal was made at all. Nuclear negotiations although seriously important, appear to also be very challenging to have take place with fair and desirable results.

    The three lasting principles of the Monroe Doctrine are separate spheres of influence, non-colonization, and non-intervention. If the U.S were to still follow these principles today, the approach on nuclear talks with Iran may be a bit different. A long time ago , America may have just left Iran warnings, telling Iran that as long as they stay away we’ll stay away too.; no negotiations at all. Also, the negotiations seem to go against non-intervention, since Iran building their nuclear program technically isn’t a direct threat to America. Even if it was a direct threat, the U.S would have reacted differently.  We might been less cautious about President Obama’s international reputation and demanded a deal, or simply took straight action in Iran. The nuclear talks are a bit contradictory in the media and some seem to believe that a deal should have absolutely been made. Today, we have clearly changed our foreign policy quite a bit over the years; was it for better or for worse?

Bibliography: Sanger, David, Michael Gordon, and Peter Baker. "A Nuclear Deal for U.S. and Iran Slips Away Again." The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/world/middleeast/nuclear-deal-again-eludes-us-and-iran-.html?_r=0.

Race and Identity in Gran Colombia and Modern Day U. S.

     Race and identity have throughout time affected mankind through forms of both isolation and unity, gradually creating a place of diverse cultures all bound together by a single planet. Gran Columbia's history of searching for independence is a great example of the impact that race and identity can have on national identity and politics.

     Venezuelan Simón Bolívar was the base of Gran Columbia's successes when attempting to achieve independence from Spain.  His first act of rebellion was in 1810 as an officer in Carcas, where he was a part of the conspiracy that expelled the Spanish governor of Venezuela. In 1811 a national assembly of Carcas declares independence for Venezuela which is only to be reversed by the Spanish military a year later. Bolívar becomes known as the liberator in years to come for his dedication to the rebellion. Even after many extreme failures he always seemed to bound back. In 1819 the Spanish army surrenders in an engagement at Boyacá. Success is increasing day by day and by June if 1821 Bolívar  is able to win a battle at Carabo and in may 1822 Antonio José de Sucre is able to bring about another rebel victory at Pichincha. The Republica de Columbia is freed. Keeping Gran Columbia unified, however, is difficult  and eventually Ecuador and Venezuela are no longer a part of it. By being so separate from their mother country, Gran Columbia had become their own ethnicity, with a completely different culture from Spain. They couldn’t stand to be ruled by these people any longer. Race was a huge political factor to the people of Gran Columbia, since maintaining their true identity required a revolution, and changing their system completely. Race change seemed to go hand with political change and national identity change for Gran Colombia

     The public response to the shooting of Ferguson resident Michael Brown  serves as an example of how race and identity continues to impact the world despite it being a couple hundred years since Gran Colombia's journey to freedom.  Situations involving the boys death are explained in Michael brown shooting: Ferguson Grand Jury does not indict Officer Darren Wilson. The case as explained in the article was evidently a huge deal to the whole country, but more so to the city it took place in which faced many arrests and riots. People were sure that Michael Brown was killed as opposed to other forms of punishment, because of the color of his skin. They were outraged to learn that Officer Wilson would not face criminal charges for what many call murder rather than self defense. Today, race continues to affect us just in different ways. People are still fighting to make sure that racial justice is served. Although we have found peace and acceptance of our diversity, and we have many races under one nation, ridding ourselves of all racial disagreements is nearly impossible. In my opinion, the evidence does seem to show that regardless of Michael’s skin color, he would’ve had to be killed by Wilson who was in need of self-defense. However, no matter what side of the argument you appeal to, the situation shows how race still impacts our national identity. Either because Wilson tried to kill a boy thinking his race was inferior or because people assumed he did so. Both suggest different cultures and ways to be among different races existing under our one nation. Politics were affected; considering our president was forced to be involved with the case. Politics still involve ridding ourselves of racism.

      Race and identity have proved to be a big part of how a nation and politics are defined for hundreds of years, and although this has decreased a lot especially in the United states, the statement still holds true today.


Bibliography: Sneed, Tierney. "Darren Wilson Not Indicted in Michael Brown's Death." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/24/michael-brown-shooter-darren-wilson-not-indicted-by-grand-jury>.