I need a short to medium 1-2 paragraphs to answer each of these two questions: 1

Question

I need a short to medium 1-2 paragraphs to answer each of these two questions:

1.) Does the US policy (last 75 yrs) of exporting democracy still have partial applications today or with the rise of international tensions suggest the UN and democracy are fleeting notions and unattainable today? Remember that democracies are in the monitory within the collection of the state governments in existence today.

2.)Only need one of these answered, I don't care which one:
a.) Positive nationalism is define as, "proper love for one's country". The US foreign policy has long promoted the spread of US style democracy, which is positive nationalism, is our style of democracy workable in country's that have moral values different from ours? Or, is our style of democracy uniquely American and un-reproducible?

OR

b.) They say "Nations" have certain requirements, but how will the US or any other nation maintain nation continuity with such large influx of immigrants that do not adopt or respect that nation’s beliefs? The Syrian refugees are causing issues in Europe even after being accepted with open arms; is there any reason to think those same types of issues will or won’t occur in the US?

Explanation / Answer

2) b) In order to help the Syrian refugees many European countries have open doors for the immigrants and refugees to gain their citizenship. However, there are many countries which are now coming to the opinion that many refugees who claim to be one are not refugees and illegal immigrants. Sweden came up with as many as 80,000 illegal immigrants last year. And so did Germany, France and other countries. These immigrants not only affect the economy but the basic life of the citizens of the area. However, everybody on earth now knows that Europe’s present leaders lack either the will or the means to enforce their own laws. So more people will come next year, and the year after that and the year after that. All in the knowledge that once you’re in, you’re in. If the facts were otherwise then Sweden, Germany and other countries across the continent would currently be preparing to ship hundreds of thousands of people out of Europe and back to their countries of origin. But they’re not and eventiually, over the years Europe will be taken over by the immigrants.

Effective border control in the United States has become an increasing challenge over the past few decades. Faced with enormous political pressure to stop illegal immigration and to prevent the entry of potential terrorists, the U.S. government has devoted ever more resources to enforcing border policies. There are many reforms taken to stop the illegal immigrants. But are these costs woth depending on the success ratio and are they required? It is believed that illegal immigrants do not blend in and respect the Nation's belief but actually not all immigrants are illegal or try to take jobs away from the citizens. There have been so many immigrants who have actually made success and given the fruits to countires like US and UK. However, for those immigrants wh do not adopt to the beliefs of the government may not even attain majority as because of the tight legal reforms and rules on immigrations.

1) Exporting democracy is a matter of debate. It can gain legitimacy provided that it is based on three intentions. The first intention is related to the willingness to sound out the intentions of the peoples of third states with regard to a democratic regime. It must be assumed not only that it is in the interest of these peoples to have a democratic government, but also that peoples may not succeed in attaining their objective because they are repressed by the ruling government. The second intention is related to giving the population freedom of choice regarding its own form of government. It is clearly anti-democratic to want to export democracy without allowing the people to decide which constitutional form they prefer. The third intention refers to the way of assessing the political regimes involved. Since exporting democracy requires the existence of at least two agents, the importer and the exporter, it would be necessary to perform an independent assessment to establish whether the importer actually needs a change of regime and whether the exporter is in a position to develop an alternative regime. If a population is dissatisfied with its legitimate political regime, it can rebel. In the moment in which the relationship between a government and its public is broken - up to the point where open conflict develops - one believes it is also possible for external forces to intervene. When diverse groups compete for power, it becomes permissible for democratic states to provide real support to political parties which advocate the introduction of a democratic system. However, in the absence of an explicit rebellion which shows popular interest in a regime change, an intervention becomes ethically unsound.

Military intervention has not always been explicitly adopted to build democratic institutions. In Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, for example, the objective of democratization was a secondary concern, after the containment of communism. However, the American obsession with exporting democracy via its army has brought about more failures than successes. The internal context is the level of support enjoyed by an existing regime is a crucial factor. Not all authoritarian regimes are equally opposed by their populations. (Even Hitler and Mussolini had strong public support.) Today, there are populist and theocratic regimes, like Iran's, which have broad popular support and have been ratified through free and fair elections. Wanting to impose democracy - literally, the power of the people - against the will of the same people is simply nonsense. Aggression is counterproductive the efficacy of regime change after the second world war was helped by the fact that the fascist regimes started the war. Their military defeat discredited the old regimes internally, and made the public realize that it was necessary to try, or return to, another type of political organisation. The same conditions existed in Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwaitin 1990, but at the time the coalition forces decided not to undertake a regime change in Baghdad. When, instead, the subsequent war was begun by democracies in 2003, Iraqis viewed themselves as the victims of an attack and were hostile towards the political regime put forward by the invaders. Due to concerns about being colonized, the local populations are generally hostile when they confront a transitional administration, which can become permanent and overbearing. In Afghanistan and in Iraq, the provisional administrations are officially multilateral-but, in effect, they are dominated by the US, a country with little or no affinity with the local populations and which provokes deep hostility.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.