Those who know me know that I don't like discussing politics, but let's give it a whirl folks.
I would like to add a disclaimer that this editorial is in no way directed at anyone in particular nor is it a way for me to change people's political opinions. This is simply me voicing my own opinions, which I encourage everyone to do.
I also encourage readers to practice decorum when constructing responses to this article.
Now that that's over, let's get political.
The republic which we call home, I believe, survives based on its diplomatic relations and foreign trade. Without strong foreign ties, the U.S. would lose large crop influxes, military alliances and treaties would be at risk.
World Political Review published an article by Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service adjunct professor H. Allen Holmes, who discusses the importance of foreign embassies.
Holmes points out that in the past, the withholding of diplomatic relations was seen as a way to punish countries for actions including human rights abuses, failure to abide by international law, specific treaty violations and acts of war (although this approach usually doesn't work).
Holmes also believes that this absence of diplomatic relations represents an obstacle to the pursuit of foreign policy, and I tend to agree.
No senior diplomatic presence on the ground means that important policy initiatives are sent through third parties or contacts in international organizations such as the U.N.
Such indirect contact deprives the U.S. government of the capability for a resident ambassador to intervene in a crisis, to question and to listen — all so critical to diplomatic persuasion.
Essentially, the lack of foreign ties in countries of interest to the U.S. gives way for U.S. policies to fall apart.
He continues, stating that state-to-state relations among nations provide an essential framework for the conduct of foreign relations. Having no relations, and the resulting prolonged absence of a diplomatic presence in a country, seriously handicaps America's ability to achieve major foreign policy and national security goals.
Diplomatic relations, therefore, should be a top priority for anyone in the political arena with enough power to affect the state of the nation, unless national security efforts requires a different course of action.
ThoughtCo writer Keith Porter examines what he refers to as "the middle path" for foreign policy, which promotes harmony between the U.S. and other countries.
Porter's middle path puts diplomatic relations in a positive light, even though many times the light is negative. By working with U.S. allies, rewarding countries that share our nation's values and joining arms against tyranny and hatred within the world, diplomatic relations will get stronger over time.
The U.S. also relies on a strong diplomatic presence to maintain good relationships with countries involved in global trade. If the U.S.'s diplomatic presence falters, this puts ties at risk with countries the nation receives imports from as well as countries the nation exports goods to.
At this time, some citizens believe the nation is facing crisis in the field of diplomatic relations. What's important to remember is that citizens are not powerless.
The definition of a republic is as follows: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
As such, citizens have all the power they could possibly imagine!
I see people every day expressing strong opinions on actions the lawmakers, senators and even the President makes, yet I hardly ever see people take action on it. As one of the voters in our republic, you are not powerless.
If you're unhappy with a policy, a law or even just a political opinion, take some action on it - voice your opinions.
I encourage everyone to take a stand.