This group project was created to demonstrate our abilities to lead a discussion and effectively communicate our ideas with an audience outside of the classroom. As a course, we hosted a 'Deliberation Nation' event at a local coffee house that welcomed members of the community to come and engage in discussion about a certain topic. Our topic was America's role in foreign affairs. We gave all participants a copy of our 'Issues Brief,' an outline of three proposed solutions and their pros and cons. Our role was not to push a certain solution on the audience but to discuss the obvious and unforeseen consequences, good and bad, of our proposed solutions. We saw a great turnout with over 45 community members joining us in the deliberation. The 'Issues Brief' is located below and if you feel led, you may post a comment and continue the discussion!

Bully, Bystander or Buddy?:

America’s Role on the International Playground

Formal Issues Brief

Topic: What role should the United States take on the international stage?

Group Members: Jack Iffert, Meghan Yizzi, Maria Lucchi, Sabrina Knott, Kevin Cardenas, Johnny Barton, Max Isabelle, Laura Kerns, Az Nalbandian

Overview:

In lieu of an increasingly globalizing international community, the question of how the United States should interact in international affairs arises.  Should the United States take a very aggressive, offensive, “Bully” like approach;  a laissez faire, isolationist, “Bystander” approach; or a cooperative, assistive, and mediation-minded “Buddy”.  The United States has adopted a variety of these approaches throughout its history, but currently has no defined approach for its foreign involvement. Furthermore, with the upcoming presidential election, the United States’ foreign policy has become a hot topic, especially due to the Syrian refugee crisis, the threat of ISIS and the debate on immigration. In upcoming years, what role should the US have in international affairs?

Option 1 – Bully

We as a country are not aggressive enough in foreign policy and international affairs. Although we are involved internationally with several countries, our degree of interference is not as strong as it needs to be to demonstrate our power and dominance internationally as a country. If we want to better position ourselves in the future, we must act with more firmness and involve ourselves to an even greater extent internationally. With the election ahead, our new president must show off America’s strength and power to make his or her term more effective and satisfactory.

Actions:

• Take an active, and offensive, “first on the scene” role in solving international issues.
• Place importance on the global safety of all human beings in addition to our own self-interest in the matter
• Funnel money and resources into building a strong military

Drawbacks:

• Entangling in all foreign affairs may exhaust our resources
• Not everyone may willingly accept our help
• Putting resources into military expenditures may limit the amount we have to spend on domestic affairs

Option 2 – Buddy

The United States is too aggressive in its approach to international affairs. The nations needs to remain involved with foreign affairs, but needs to take on the role of a friendly mediator between opposing parties, promoting diplomacy and peace over war.  

Actions:

• Decrease foreign military involvement – will allow us to spend more on domestic sectors (education, healthcare, infrastructure, welfare, etc.)
• Increase humanitarian aid efforts; invest in the future of developing countries

Drawbacks:

• Being purely diplomatic in tense situations may not be enough to stop conflict
• Nations may take advantage of our friendly nature and not use our aid to the improve the common good of their people

Option 3 – Bystander

America is too involved in international matters and for the country’s safety, must remove herself from as many as possible. The goal is self-preservation, we need more focus on the homefront to take care of our own “in-house problems.” With the presidential election on its way, there is great potential for change within our country, but that potential will lessen if we are focused moreso on what is going on in other countries. Perhaps it is best to stay out of international matters until the political and economic instability as well as terrorism dies out.

Actions:

• Remain neutral in international disputes that do not directly involved the United States
• Provide basic humanitarian and economic aid as needed
• Devote more time and money to causes that directly benefit the United States
• Maintain nonspecific international policy, only acting when required

Drawbacks:

• Still creates obligations to other counties
• Policies are open to, potentially incorrect, interpretation
• Somewhat costly
• Historically, Rwanda, Crimea, and the World Wars were instances in which the United States attempted to remain neutral, but the outcomes were not most favorable

Further Reading:

"2016 Presidential Candidates on Foreign Affairs - Ballotpedia." 2016 Presidential Candidates on Foreign Affairs - Ballotpedia. N.p., Feb. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

Bandow, Doug. "How to Deal with North Korea." The National Interest. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2016. 

"Debating the U.S. Military's Role in International Peacekeeping." United States Institute of Peace. United Sttate Institute of Peace, 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

Eaglen, Mackenzie. "The United States Must Have a Viable Missile Defense System." Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Nuclear Armament, 2011. Web. 02 Feb. 2016.

Keller, Bill. "Our New Isolationism." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.