American Diplomacy,

I am a Venezuelan citizen, worried about the problem that we have here. I am a business man, and I really don´t see any solution to this.... I think that U.N. and United States of America can help to resolve this problem..... they need to have a position with Venezuela.

I have two questions that I think don´t have the answer:

Is Venezuela going to be another Cuba?

Do you think that the U.S. is going to help Venezuela???? Because I do not see that we can resolve it by ourselves..........

Please help us....... for our future and the future of our children.......

Please, send this e-mail to Mr. Bush......

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,
Carlos Zarraga.

Don L. Diehl at dldiehl@swbell.net wrote:

Do you have just a brief history of what a U.S. ambassador is, how it began, purpose, etc?

The best single brief source on the topic you cite is an entry by Gaddis Smith in the four-volume "Encyclopedia of U. S. Foreign Relations" (1997), vol. 1, titled "Ambassadors and Embassies." I suggest tracking down that source in the nearest research library would repay the effort.

Best of luck with your research.

Henry E. Mattox, PhD
U. S. Foreign Service officer, ret.
Editor, "American Diplomacy"
http://americandiplomacy.org

I am Tommaso Gianni, final-year student of Chinese language and Literature, in Venice. I am going to research all the available sources about WEN WU: Martial-Civil principles, for my thesis.

Could you, please, suggest me any ? Thanks a lot.

Tommaso Gianni tolandvai@tiscalinet.it

Thank you for your message. We are unable to guide you to the topic you list, but suggest you may wish to take a look at an article published in our journal some time ago. From the Masthead page, go to the search segment at the bottom, enter "Ralph D. Sawyer" or "China" and click. I hope you will find that article on Chinese warfare interesting.

Henry E. Mattox, PhD
U. S. Foreign Service officer, ret.
Editor, "American Diplomacy"
http://americandiplomacy.org

Henry,

I had my first ride on those Bengali rivers in January 1945. As an Army Air Corps corporal I slept on the deck. Officers had cots. Our boat, which took us to an area close to Chittagong, had a date of manufacture printed on it, 1896. Of course, it wasn't yet Bangladesh. It was British India.

I returned in 1988 as a civilian leader of a team attached to the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, and stationed in the capital city Dacca. However, I got to Chittagong once again, this time traveling by road but crossing broad rivers with my car in a ferry boat. Chittagong had changed. In 1945 nothing was over two stories and the streets were cinders. In 1988 there were some tall buildings and the streets were paved and full of holes.

And as earlier, the countryside was low and often covered with water, with bamboo huts often covered with water and with people traveling by boat over the water covered lowlands. One other change had occurred. The roads had been raised so they were not covered with water.

Bobbie Bergesen's trip was in the 1970s, but I got to read about it in 2002!

Regards,
Carl R. Fritz

This newsletter will add some valuable perspective to an informal online news group I've been participating in (basically it's a bunch of variously gruntled Boomers swapping op-ed pieces and venting on a range of current events). Thanks for putting me on your mailing list.

I read your "Why They Hate America" editorial and appreciated your balanced and reasoned approach to this very touchy issue. I think you accurately highlighted the key aspects of past Western and now American policy choices that are impacting this situation today, including the fact that America has not been evenhanded in it's reponses to Palestinian vs. Israeli agendas.

On this last point I heard an interesting comment from a "liberal" commentator during a call-in show on our local Public Radio Station to the effect that he has always understood that American support of Israel in large measure arises and is sustained as an "affirmative action program" designed to redress the long history of very real (and often deadly) persecution suffered by the Jews - which though not actually perpetrated by us in recent history - was not actively thwarted or assuaged by ourselves and our allies in the name of preserving "more important" stategic objectives in our war against Nazi (and other forms of) totalitarianism.

I'm not sure that our Arab "friends" understand the depth of our moral obligation in this regard and therefore they continue to act in ways that assume that eventually they can create circumstance in which we will abandon Israel to its fate.

Regards,

Marc Anders
New York City
March 25, 2002

I have read your recent editorial on why America is hated. It raised some very good points but missed a few as well.

In Carlton University as a student I have had time to read up on U.S. exploits and its not impressive to say the least; Pinochet...the Taliban...and countless other examples of U.S. foreign policy do not show the U.S. as anything close to what it claims to stand for. Its membership in the U.N., marked by unpaid dues, inaction and the wielding of the veto have also showed a lack of...well...what's the word?...friendliness. Lately we have seen the I.C.C. come to a halt in part due to the U.S.

So what does all this mean...well it means that educated people not just the Muslims may just have a dislike for the U.S. Granted killing all the terrorists would put an end to the current problem of security but does furthering nuclear defense initiatives and abstaining from constructive participation in the international community help?

I'm not saying I hate the U.S....its not the point and in my view it doesn't really matter if the Muslims hate it. What matters is what is done with that hate and why that hate is there. Why do those who choose to attack the U.S. do so...maybe they do it out of love for their children or their lost families, maybe a love for their culture.It may be another case of egotistical thinking on behalf of the U.S. to simply assume that the reason behind what has happened is others hate towards it. Violence should however never be resorted to but...the U.S. has on numerous occasions chosen not to obey that rule...and so all is fair in love and war.

BUT --Why does it come down to that? "Who started it" one may say...thinking back it is possible to maybe raise a date when the first stone was throw. And there it all began and would have ended too but another stone was thrown. Someone must be better than the violence, the oppression.

So back to who can do something? In most cases it comes down to those who can...those who have the resources to bring change. Change not in the form of bombed out villiages, starving children and a new generations ever more embittered...no that is not change. That is the ongoing state as proposed by Orwell...that is what we are looking at. So why should the U.S. do anything so idealistic as that for the future (so we don’t have to have nuclear defense plans) and for the thousands dying all over the world (many killed by western weapons) and for all the other good things that peace could bring? It would come at the expense of things like cheap oil, arms sales and hegemonic power. That would come at the cost of greed.

Thanks for reading,
Mark Benliner
Ottawa, Canada

Hi,

My name is Murat. I am from Tajikistan. I am 15 years old. I would like to get acquainted with you. I have seen your photo through internet. I have 1 sister and 3 brothers. My father isn't with us becaus he died in airplane crash. My mother lives with us. I realy would like to have a friend from very far US. In future I dream to be a TV star. Please answer to my mail as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your attention. Have a nice day.

Your new friend,
Murat

Dear Editors,

This is in response to Mr. Williams personal piece on the above subject. After coming to know about your site while watching C-SPAN, I thought I would visit and read some of the comments on your web-site. I am extremely disppointed by Mr. Williams piece. It is so one-sided and full of Pakistani propaganda, that I wondered, whether this piece was written by the Pakistani embassy in Washington.

I expected a more balanced piece about the India-Pak conflict instead of the jaundiced view presented here, no doubt a result of the cold-war mentality prevalent among the American foriegn policy pundits who served during the 80s and 90s.

The plebisicite which Mr. Williams talks about was on the condition that Pakistan withdraws all its forces from Kashmir and India does the same. Also, if you would carefully look at the map (presented along with the piece), you will find that China has occupied about 25% of Kashmir and Pakistan has ceded some territory to China, so that they can build a highway from China to Pakistan. This confilct is so complex, that it would take me hundreds of pages to explain it. In recent years Pakistan has sent thousands of jihadis/terrorists from across the border to fight in Kashmir. I do not say that India's hands are clean with regards to Kashmir, but to completely absolve Pakistan of any complicity in this matter is laughable and does no credit to American Diplomacy.

India helped Bangladesh get independence after millions of citizens of then East Pakistan were killed by the military and couple of millions of those citizens came to India as refugees. Please refer to any of the hundreds of books/opinions available on the Internet about Bangladeshi independence movement. Please also refer to your own State department web-site.

As for India using militiary power to annex Portugues terrritories, of course we did it. India was under colonial rule for about 300 years and the European powers did not walk up and ask for Indian land. They took the land by military means and ruled and exploited Indians for generations. So, why shouldn't we take what is rightfully ours?

Regards
Arvind Sherigar
Oak Creek, Wis. USA

It's sad to think that Mr. Beeman bases his infantile position upon the premises that Bush made his "axis of evil" statement based upon:

1. "disinformation" provided by Israel of Iran's wrongdoings, and
2. political gain by berating an "easy, innocent target"

I'm quite positive that President Bush had numerous sources of information regarding Iran activities that he carefully analyzed before reaching a decision on how to proceed with his speech.

In these very tense times, it appears to be a sign of strength, not weakness, to identify countries of most concern regarding terrorism because it opens up the President to ridicule and attacks, such as yours, resulting in a potential loss of political stature.

I believe that the Iranian people need liberation from many present governmental controls jeapordizing individual freedoms, and I think that instead of impeding any progress toward that end, that it may strengthen internal resolve to achieve country-wide anti-terrorism sentiment.

Tom Kistler
Scottsdale, Arizona

What was Americas feelings toward the displacing of thousands of palestinians to form the state of Israel. It is not fair to palestinians and i think that is why America always takes the conflict in the middle east so delicately and doesnt intervene. I am confused if you could give me the info on American policy to a situation like this and how they took it when it happened. Please and thank you for reading.

The questions you raise in your January 24 e-mail to Editor Henry Mattox are very complex. Perhaps the most useful service we can render is to suggest a few books which may cast some additional light on that turbulent period after World War 11.
You might try these:

• THE BIRTH OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE PROBLEM,1947-1949, Morris, Benny, Cambridge University Press, 1987
• FACTS AND FIGURES ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS, Zureik, Elia, Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, Washington, D.C. 1992
• PALESTINE, 1948, Gelber, Yoav, Portland, Oregon, Sussex Academic Press, 2001

I hope some of these will prove helpful to you.

Amb. William N. Dale
for American Diplomacy

Respected sir,

I read your article , "“India, Pakistan and Kashmir: a Personal View” ..I was really moved by knowing your view sir...I mean , being an Indian , and just 22,, i surely do not know the world,,but I would take your permission to express my views ..

It was very much informative on knowing what is the "Reputation of India"..As we know, Bharat (India) also called HINDUSTAN got divided into India(HINDUS) and Pakistan (MUSLIMS )..The reason of the division was religion, no doubt ..But , i think, 0.001% the reason of the separation was the difference of the "Attitudes".. Because , there are still thousands of Muslims living in India ,being proud of their nationalities,,they pray so that India would win at the match of Cricket when its India vs Pak..,,they are muslims but they don't want a different patch of land to breathe on..

And i am sure , there are forces acting behind the scenes to make india and pak fight..Because , if we see the economic state of Pak, we would see that people are not even blessed with daily meal and they have guns , nuclear powers and all the tools to fight..Same it is with India..Indians are not bothered about illiteracy rate, about the OVER population problem , about the caste system problem ,,etc.,etc but they have hours to spend on wars,,life to sacrifice for the so called "MOTHER NATION" that has given them the nationality and only a nationality and nothing else...

UN led a decision to let the people living in Kashmir to decide,,And ,,you know sir, I have heard Kashmiris (localities of Kashmir) saying its better for us to merge with the Pakistan. When i asked why, they let me know that the military forces were cruel and till the Pakistanis don't get Kashmir, they will repeat the tortures ..So, its out of the question for letting the people living in Kashmir chose where should Kashmir club to. And one of the Major point is that AT PRESENT , in Kashmir , most of the Kashmiris have escaped and run away ..The Kashmiri Pundits (Brahmin --Hindu top caste among the 4 Hindu castes) left their properties, wealth and ran to some Hindu places in India after bearing the torture..In some areas,,the actual residents of Kashmir don't live there anymore..

SIR,KINDLY NOTE THIS POINT..During the riots stated "religious riots",,it is always said that a Hindu went to a Muslim community and started the riots OR a Muslim went to some place and started the riots...But the question is, How do they know ,who actually is doing the riots??They say , there is all political parties influences .Inter state and international parties too...As we all know , the best way to stop a successor is to cut his feet,,even then if he goes on , with the help of his hands,,cut the hands ...The same way,,India is a developing country..One of the Asia's man power with brains within. So, there is, I am sure , some other burning countries too , wanting India to be engaged with this..

Sir , in your article , you have also stated that in spite of the recent parliament attacks, it does not give permissions to India to fight and everyone , even the UN, is frowning at India, i need a bit justice...Now, we've faced the terror in the states ..If the US gave a punch back to the country who did it,,((even without giving profound proofs whether it is that country only,,)),,,,No one has a word to utter. Not even the UN...But had it been India, everyone would drop their comments and dissapprovals..

thanks a lot for giving my view a glance..

Naandi Bhatt
Tokyo Technical College,
Japan

I refer to the recent article by J. Edgar Williams entitled “India, Pakistan and Kashmir: a Personal View,” that appeared recently on your website.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Williams and American Diplomacy in exposing Indian duplicity concerning its dispute with Pakistan. The international community and media have studiously avoided focusing on India’s aggressive acquisition of territories ever since it became a sovereign state, which in turn has given rise to insurgencies India likes to call “terrorism.” In this respect Mr. Williams’ article helps to balance the lop-sided exposure self-serving Indian claims receive world wide.

The Kashmir problem is indeed a result of Indian militarism, but the dispute is not simply territorial rather it is ideological. This is not a dispute over territory; instead it is dispute over the existence of Pakistan. India has still not reconciled itself to the creation of Pakistan out of Colonial India, and seeks every opportunity to terminate Pakistan’s existence as a nation state (almost succeeding in 1971). India’s irredentism is the reason why it cannot tolerate Pakistani sovereignty in Kashmir, and why it refuses to honor its own undertaking to allow a UN ordered plebiscite—not quite the stance of a democratic state.

While India takes pride in calling itself the world's largest democracy, its governments' actions fall short of democratic norms. This is specially true of the present BJP-led government which came to power by stoking the majority population’s chauvinism, including the destruction of a 300-year-old mosque. Religious minorities in India have been subjected to increased violence, as the BJP is the political arm of the militant VHP that seeks to enforce Hindu religious beliefs over other minorities. It is this ideology which also fuels anti-Pakistani attitudes in India. India’s ostensible secularism has brought a religious extremist group to power, which cannot be a good advertisement for democracy.

Similarly in spite of loud claims to secularism and democracy, India gave full hearted support to a tyrannical and expansionist Soviet Union during the cold war against the United States. India’s lust for great power status trumped its democratic ideals to such an extent that it never even condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India could not find the will to speak up for democracy and freedom because the Soviets were supplying it with vast quantities of latest military hardware, which India believed conferred to it the status of a regional superpower.

India’s military expenditure averages approximately $13 billion every year, and unlike Pakistan it has never been subjected to effective military embargoes. In addition to receiving all manner of military equipment and technologies from the Soviet Union/Russia, including ballistic missile and nuclear technology, India has also received the latest military equipment and technologies from Britain, France, Sweden, South Africa, Israel, Germany, and the United States.

A militaristic India is a threat to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the region. International supplies of military hardware and associated technologies allows India to use these arms to bully its neighbors and annex their territory, recent examples being Sikkim in 1975 and Siachin Glacier in 1982. Such military supplies to India must be stopped as a first step towards reducing regional tensions, and a balance of forces must be created to counter India’s dangerous superiority in weapons that tempts it to undermine its neighbors' sovereignty.

Mr. Williams’ article helps reveal the true nature of Indian conduct that has been ignored by the international community for too long, and I commend American Diplomacy for publishing his views on its website.

Naved Naqui
Houston, Texas

Much has been discussed about the Kashmir issue by several so called "experts" and I being no expert, will not dwell on it suffice to say, that history records that the ruler fled to India and signed a treaty with
India, only after Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan. (Though Mr Williams opines differently and makes it seem as though India invaded Kashmir first and Pakistan had no option but to belatedly grab a third of the land. )

Mr Williams also talks about the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Daman and Diu. Funny he mentions that. I'm originally from Goa, under the Portuguese rule, my forefathers had the option of either converting to Christianity or to lose their lands (and in several cases their heads) and pay a religious tax to practice their religion. Our temples were destroyed and we were driven out of our own land. The fact that Portugal invaded a foreign country, took over territory, conducted a brutal inquisition in the name of religion, does not bother Mr Williams, nor does the fact, that when the Portuguese left, they decamped with its riches. He takes issue with the fact that India had the "temerity" to ask the Portuguese to leave.

Ditto with the French occupation of Pondicherry. (Though the French mercifully left religion out of the equation). As for India invading Portuguese/French territory, when I last looked at the map, Portugal and France were still separated from India by a few thousand miles. Have the imperialistic countries ever paid for their crimes against humanity? Well actually they do not have to, it seems that their victims are the guilty ones for demanding their own land back.

Extrapolating Mr Williams' logic, perhaps, he also resents India's freedom movement that "invaded British territory", and drove the British out, that probably should top the list of India's "crimes".

Speaking of Bangladesh, Mr Williams, casually fails to mention that reportedly over 1 million Bangladeshis were butchered by the army of what was then West Pakistan, a genocide which the west ignored, since Pakistan was a cold war ally. Never mind, that millions of Bangladeshis poured into India, straining its already fragile economy or changing the demographics of India's North Eastern states drastically. Never mind, that it was Pakistan who declared war on India assuming that India would not be able to fight a war on two fronts. Never mind that the UN censured India for it's "role" in the liberation of Bangladesh and the prevention of further massacres. Never mind that the experience of the Bangladeshi Muslims debunked the theory that Pakistan is the sole "protector" of the Muslims in the sub-continent.

Is India a perfect democracy? No! Nor is the US for that matter. Mistakes may have been committed in India's handling of Kashmir, but India is undeniably a stable, pluralistic, secular, democracy in a region that is not. I have a couple of questions for Mr Williams, how would he feel, if the US was sandwiched between two countries, one an increasingly fundamentalist state that uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy to further it's cause and has fought 4 wars with you in the last 55 years (the Kargil war, which General Musharaff orchestrated and could have led to a nuclear war if not for India's restraint has conveniently been forgotten by Mr Williams), and another a communist country with a brutal history of repression and human rights violations that does not recognize it's borders with you? What if the communist country continues to supply nuclear technology and missiles to the other state and the two threatened his very existence? What would he do?

If I was in his position, I would ensure that my country was protected. I would say that the attack on my country's parliament is equivalent to an attack on my country's sovereignty and has been preceded by other acts of terrorism throughout my country over the last 10 years that has left over 50,000 of my countrymen dead. I would be surprised if the international community threatened me with sanctions and retribution while it ignored the role of others who continue to wage a proxy war of a "thousand cuts" against my countrymen.

This is my personal opinion and a personal opinion perhaps shared by a billion of my countrymen.

And while on the subject of Kashmir, perhaps this might make interesting reading for Mr Williams: http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/

Sincerely,
Rajesh Nayak, M.S. in Engineering

The article in Jan 2002 by Mr. Williams is an insult to Indian people. He describes India's decision to take back Goa and Pondicherry as 'invasion'. I wonder if he would use similar language to describe the American War of Independence. Both states are happily part of the Indian Union ever since and there is not even a murmur of protest or requests to become slaves of Portugal again.

Regarding his position on Kashmir, no one denies that India offered a referendum. But subsequent events made that offer meaningless. Pakistan never pulled its troops back, Kashmiri leaders willingly accepted being part of India in democratically held elections and to top it all massive ethnic cleansing carried out by Pakistani fanatics permanently altered the demographics. The only way out of the mess is through dialogue, and India is ready for it once Pakistan passes back into the control of moderates. The process has been started, thanks to 911 and American pressure.

India has border issues with China too. But they deal with it maturely. They do not send terrorists into each other's territory. The two have decided to focus on issues where thier opinions converge and leave the contentitous issues for a time when both develop better mutual understanding and trust. Trade, business and cultural ties are allowed to flourish and they bring their own momentum. When estranged couples try to rebuild their marriage, having another child is not the first topic that is discussed. That is exactly the model that should be followed in the case of India-Pakistan issues as well. The problem is the fanatics that control Pakistan, the very same ones that created the Taliban and Al-Qaeda nurture fond hopes that by seizing Kashmir, they can start a process that breaks India up. A united secular India is not in their interests since that is not the model they recommend for Pakistan. Once these forces are marginalised, dialogue will surely follow. The international community should focus its efforts on that.

Trying to browbeat India into submission is not just morally wrong, it just will not work.

Ganesh Rangamani
Singapore

I appreciate Ed Williams' article on this subject. I have spent much time in India, and have traveled through Pakistan. My first stay in India was during British India days during W.W.II. I returned there in 1951, just as the Kashmir debate was well under way. I helped start the Point IV Program there, and we set up headquarters in Faridkot House, a large palace, once the Delhi home of the Sultan of Faridkot. Part of the palace at that time was set aside for an international group which was supposed to be overlooking a Kashmir settlement. Obviously, it never happened!

We need peace in South Asia, and we're not going to have it until the Kashmir dispute is settled. I agree with Ed Williams that the settlement should be by the people who live in Kashmir. Let them decide. I say this despite the fact that I have had many friends in India who would probably prefer a settlement in favor of India.

Regards,
Carl R. Fritz

Dear folks of American Diplomacy,

Thanks for your article on the web called, "Columbus Discovers America" by J. Edgar Williams.

I found it while trying to verify some information from my mom, and now would like to pass on that information to you and Mr. Williams.

In 1959, when mom (Linda Rundell) was a schoolgirl, she wrote to the local newspaper in Herlong CA asking if there were any living direct descendants of Christopher Columbus. In April 1959 she received a letter and a picture.

If you are interested, I have attached to this email lo-res scans of the front and back of this letter, and a transcript.

The translation is fractured, because nobody in the family speaks Spanish, and the Duke had terrible handwriting!

A copy of the letter or hi-res scans may gotten simply by emailing my parents:

Brad and Linda Sigler (maiden:Rundell)
13 Kline St.
Hudson, NY 12534
bgsigler@mhcable.com

Thanks again for the article! It was very entertaining, well-written, and helped to fill in the rest of the story.

Sincerely,
Ed Sigler
1719 E 725 N
W. Lafayette, IN 47906-9011
thesiglers@hotmail.com

I would like to contact Mr. Carl R. Fritz, regarding his writing of Vietnam in "An American Civilian in the Vietnam War". He note of Minneapolis-Moline tractors being sent to Vietnam.

I'm working on a History book of Minneapolis-Moline, and would like to contact him regarding them.

sincerly,
Martin A. Johnson
Pine City, MN

The Chief Editor of American Diplomacy has contacted me regarding your request for information on my knowledge of Minneapolis-Moline tractors. I know very little, but I shall be happy to share with you a passage from my notes on the subject. The tractors were purchased by USAID which had its headquarters in Saigon. I was based in Danang.

"During 1970 Representative Fred Schwengel of Iowa was visiting us. I was rather proud of what we were doing to get Vietnamese refugees back to their own farmland. In Thua Thien Province, for some years farmers coming from the eastern part of the province were living in miserable conditions in camps along Route 1. Meanwhile, their farmland had become solid as rock and unsuitable for tilling. At this particular time, some Minneapolis-Moline tractors had been purchased and assignedto this particular area, and a group of 101st Airborne soldiers had been assigned to break the ground with these tractors. A group of Vietnamese Regional Forces was assigned to guard them.

Rep. Schwengel and I traveled in the DepCORDS helicopter to Hue where we were joined by Col. Thanh, the Thua Thien Province Chief and his chief American advisor, a lieutenant colonel. Col. Thanh gave us directions to the area where I asked the crew to take us down. The crew was not up to date on conditions in the area, and refused to land. After arguing for a moment, I told the US lieutenant colonel to order them to land which he did.

After we landed, Rep. Schwengel proved that the area had gone through a change. Getting on one of those Minneapolis-Moline tractor, he showed us he could break ground, and appeared to enjoy himself immensely!"

I hope this is useful to you, because it is the extent of my knowledge.

Yours sincerely,
Carl R. Fritz

HI THERE!

I AM A STUDENT OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, DOING A PROJECT ON
DIPLOMACY. I WAS WONDERING IF U COULD SEND ME SOME IMFORMATION CONCERNING DIPLOMACY. PROJECT TITLE: IS DIPLOMACY MORE OR LESS RELEVANT TODAY AS A TOOL OF FOREIGN POLICY?

CHEERS!

T.
Thank you for your interest in American Diplomacy. I suggest that you may wish to search the archives of the journal in pursuit of information on your topic. Go to the main masthead page, find the search function, and try words or combinations of words that meet your criteria.
Good luck with your research.

Henry E. Mattox, PhD
U. S. Foreign Service officer, ret.
Editor, "American Diplomacy"
http://americandiplomacy.org

Dear American Diplomacy,

For the past few months I have heard things on the news and read them in newspapers about how middle eastern countries do not like (and sometimes hate) US Foreign Policy toward their nations.  I keep hearing these things, but the one thing that I don't hear is what exactly is US Foreign Policy toward those nations?

The thing is, I really don't know anything about Foreign Policy and I'm trying to hack my way through political jargon that I barely recognize from one year at college.  I am now 23 years old, returning to college, and I feel horrible that I don't know anything about US Foreign Policy.

For a while I was thinking that perhaps I missed that day in government class.... then I talked to a friend who I had government class in and she had the same exact questions as I did.  Isn't this the kind of thing that we should learn in school? Especially a government class?  I'm beginning to wonder how many other people are as in the dark about this particular subject as I am? 

The worst part of this is the fact that my interest in this comes only after months of hearing people complain about policy.  I believe that everyone in this country should take an interest in what this country does and how it handles itself with other nations.

Unfortunately, I still have yet to find a decent web to actually break it down for me enough to understand. I just hear things about economic sanctions, embargos, etc... But I really don't hear why. The only embargos I remember hearing about were the ones before the Revolutionary War of these great United States.  This is the only US Foreign Policy that I've ever heard about and that took place before we were even the US.

So, if someone could kindly please give me an easy run down of what it is, what I should look for on the internet (or recommend a decent book on the matter), and just point me in the right direction I would highly appreciate it.

Sincerely,
A new suscriber,
Jessica T. Rutherford
South Bend, IN

Thank you for your thoughtful question (which I'm asking our Webmaster to post in our "Letters to the Editor" segment unless you object). Your query is so broad, however, that I cannot do justice to an answer that would meet your needs in one reply. Let me suggest that you begin by 1) dipping into the 'pages' of "American Diplomacy" and its archived material, which goes back five years, for information relating to your question, and 2) that you check out of your library a couple of standard textbooks on U. S. foreign policy, one on the history thereof and another on how it is formulated and implemented. Then some serious, concentrated reading on your part obviously would be in order. Let me know if you have a question about the appropriateness of given books that you come across. I am copying this message to a retired senior diplomat who, it happens, is currently teaching a course at Duke Univ. on the U.S. Foreign Service. You may wish to contact him, as well, or he may possibly have a suggestion or two. Best wishes with your intellectual endeavor. Get back to me if you have further questions, and thank you for your interest in "American Diplomacy."

Henry E. Mattox, Ph.D.
Editor, American Diplomacy
http://americandiplomacy.org

Please send your letters to our editor at editor@americandiplomacy.org.