U.S. officials vented their disapproval this week after Russia and China vetoed an Arab League plan to stop the violence in Syria. Most vocal was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who said the veto "disgusted" Americans. For more comments from other officials, check here.

Photo: U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice (L) speaks to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on January 31, 2012, during a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on the crisis in Syria.

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

U.N. Veto Angers U.S. Officials originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 22:05:13.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The State Department announced February 6 that the U.S. is closing its embassy in Syria and calling Ambassador Robert Ford and embassy personnel home. An earlier wave of embassy personnel left in January after bombings in Damascus -- Syria's capital and the home of the embassy -- in January and December 2011.

The violence is an extension of protests against the repressive regime of President Bashar Al-Assad that began nearly a year ago during "Arab Spring." Al-Assad has repeated unleashed Syrian troops to violent crack down on protesters.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said in a press release that the United States had expressed concern about Syria's ability to protect the embassy in January in the wake of renewed violence.

The move does not mean that the U.S. has severed diplomatic relations with Syria. Ford will remain the ambassador, and the U.S. will conduct business through the Polish Embassy, according to the Washington Post.

The embassy closure comes just days after Russia and China vetoed a UN vote on an Arab League plan to end the Syrian violence by having Al-Assad hand over power to his vice-president. It also indicated that U.S. believes more violence is eminent with Al-Assad thus buoyed by the Sino-Russian veto.

U.S. Closes Embassy In Syria originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 17:33:57.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The foreign aid that the United States is putting into Afghanistan as part of its "fight, talk, build" strategy prior to the end of the American military mission there in 2014 is -- like all U.S. foreign aid -- a descendant of the post-World War II Marshall Plan.

You can read about the Marshall Plan here, and while you're doing so, remember that there are a lot of similarities between Marshall Plan money to western Europe in 1948 and USAID money to Afghanistan in 2012.

The Marshall Plan pumped money into a war-torn region to rebuild infrastructures, promote the economy, and reinvigorate agriculture; likewise USAID to Afghanistan. The Marshall Plan tried to stabilize governments to avoid chaos; same with Afghanistan. And while it was not a stated policy of the Marshall Plan, it became almost synonymous with U.S. efforts to prevent the communist Soviet Union from infiltrating western European governments. USAID money likewise has the underlying intent of keeping the Taliban from knocking over the Afghan government after U.S. troops pull out.

None of this is any surprise. We've done it globally for 65 years, and, even though budget highs and lows dictate aid amounts, we'll be doing it for some time to come.

USAID In Afghanistan Is Descendant Of Great Marshall Plan originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 21:45:08.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The United States is banking on USAID and building projects to ready Afghanistan for self-sufficiency after 2014. Foreign aid and help with infrastructure, education, health, and governance programs have been central to U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. They are now part of the U.S. plan of "fight, talk, build" for Afghanistan.

Learn more about the "build" part of the equation here.

Photo: An Afghan woman lays out peppers to dry. USAID road projects have improved the ability of Afghan growers to get produce to markets.

Photo courtesy USAID/Afghanistan

Building In Afghanistan originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 16:22:41.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The Taliban -- that fundamental, radical Islamic group that once ran Afghanistan, sheltered Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists, and has been fighting American troops in Afghanistan for more than a decade -- has opened an "office" in Qatar. That move heralds a new phase in the Afghan war, one as reliant on negotiation as combat.

The U.S. has said it is ending combat missions by 2014, and it wants an end to the animosity between the official Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and the insurrectionist Taliban before then. The U.S. wants negotiation working hand-in-hand with remaining military operations to achieve that reconciliation.

Negotiation is part of the U.S. strategy of "fight-talk-build." You can read about it here.

Photo: Taliban commanders and other Taliban fighters surrender themselves to the Afghan government in August 2011.

Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

Negotiating With The Taliban originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 00:13:55.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Is Iran ready to negotiate with the West about its nuclear program? Apparently so. Time.com is reporting at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his country are ready for nuclear talks.

That makes it even more clear that American and European sanctions on Iran are working.

Of course Ahmadinejad says Iran will never bend to the West. Okay, but the evidence says otherwise.

Iran Ready To Negotiate? originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 09:38:05.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Next December will be the 40th anniversary of man's last moon landing. The 40th anniversary of man's last moon landing! How can that be?

On January 17, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a U.S./European initiative to create a Code of Conduct for Space. Essentially, it's a movement to stop "congesting" space with more space junk through responsible outer space behavior. That would seemingly prevent mankind from adding to the some 22,000 trackable pieces of space debris that endanger spacecraft and satellites.

Okay, fine. But that sounds kind of "old maidish" given that we're not doing much right now to litter space. I know, one good hit from a loose wrench traveling at 10 miles per second could destroy a communication satellite and shut down phone service along the eastern seaboard.

Bit it's also important to attend the need for human exploration. Those of us who watched Neal Armstrong set foot on the Moon in 1969 thought surely we'd see someone on Mars by 1980. After all, we saw pics from a robot there during the 1976 Bicentennial. Instead we opted to spend thirty years sending the Shuttle into orbit time after time.

The Shuttle was a great program, no doubt. We need reusable craft as part of any effective space effort. Part of any program, not the whole program.

Of course now we're not going into space at all, except on the backs of Russian rockets, and NASA seems to have no direction. Private enterprise space travel isn't going too fast, either.

I applaud the Code of Conduct for Space, but I really wish President Obama hadn't cancelled the Orion program that would have put Americans back on the Moon. Yes, we've been there before, but what if Americans in the 1830s had gone to California once and then never gone back?

When I was a kid I told myself I was going to the Moon before I died. Come on -- I need a ride!

Photo: The Lunar Module of Apollo 9 orbits the Earth in March 1969. It became space junk itself after the mission. It's descent (lower) stage fell out of orbit later that month; the ascent stage remained in orbit until 1981.

Photo courtesy NASA

Space Code? Let's Go Back First originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 21:11:01.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The U.S. Congress backed away from the SOPA/PIPA internet piracy acts in the wake of heavy opposition by internet users and websites alike. But amid the furor, few people noticed that the Obama White House had positioned itself against SOPA/PIPA well before the web blackout of sites like Wikipedia on January 18.

On January 14, the White House published a blog entitled Combating Online Piracy While Protecting An Open And Innovative Internet. The statement authors are Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget; Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff.

"While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," the authors write. Essentially, Obama will not sign any current SOPA/PIPA legislation coming out of Congress.

Given his foreign policy position on Internet freedom, Obama could not do otherwise. In 2011 he introduced his International Strategy for Cyberspace which calls for a safe, yet open and uncensored global internet.

No doubt, proponents of SOPA/PIPA will try again, but Obama's already made his opinion known.

Obama White House -- No SOPA, No Surprise originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 13:29:45.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

In his only real foreign policy speech of the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said at The Citadel, "If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that President today."

In reality, though, Romney's foreign policy plan is little different from Obama's.

In brief, Romney wants an international system conducive to open trade, and political freedom; creative use of hard and soft power in diplomacy; and multilateralism with retained options for unilateral action.

Obama is the champion of multilateralism. Case in point: NATO's successful mission -- with the U.S. a partner among many -- to help Libyan rebels oust dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. Yet Obama also retains the option of unilateral action. Remember the Navy SEALS taking out Osama Bin Laden?

Romney sees a sound U.S. economy as essential for a strong foreign policy, but he ignores the economic chaos that Bush-era military overspending, plus economic deregulation, created. He also skips right by the extra chaos that Tea Party shenanigans wrought twice last year with threats of government shut-downs and debt default.

Romney wants free reign to use both hard (military) and soft (foreign aid, negotiation) power in his international dealings. Obama does both. Romney wants to keep a close eye on China; Obama is shifting American focus to the Asia Pacific region.

It goes on and on. You can check out my brief digest of Romney's foreign policy platform here.

You can also read Romney's policies at his ">website.

No matter what rhetorical spin Romney puts on any of his policies, he is trying -- to no avail -- to differentiate himself from Obama.

Photo: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney shakes hands with supporters at a South Carolina rally, January 21, 2012.

Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Romney's Foreign Policy Platform: Nothing New Here originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 12:41:07.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

The United States has had economic sanctions against Iran for much of the last three decades. In the 1980s, the U.S. wanted to cut Iranian export revenues, which would in turn cut into Iran's ability to sponsor terrorism.

That issue is still there, of course, but now sanctions also aim at depriving Iran's nuclear program of funding. From the way Iran is acting, it looks like the sanctions are working. If you're confused about all the sanctions the United States has levied on Iran, read here for a brief history.

A Look At Iranian Sanctions originally appeared on About.com US Foreign Policy on Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 16:23:24.

Permalink | Comment | Email this