my understanding of our democracy is that a government controls the people (by use of laws, policy etc) - and that the people control the government (by voting).
when a government has a foreign policy, this is a method of control of people by the government. But these people do not have a vote for or against that government.
in the case of two countries where one is very powerful and the other is not, the foreign policy of the powerful country almost becomes law in the weaker country, regardless of the wishes of those people.
this does not seem at all democratic.
Originally posted by flexmoreForeign policy is how a country controls its own people (such as its soldiers) abroad, and helps them communicate with other countries. Even the US can't give other countries commands; however, if they don't agree to what the US wants, they might find themselves shunned by the people of the US (via their government or not as the case may be) when it comes to other things.
my understanding of our democracy is that a government controls the people (by use of laws, policy etc) - and that the people control the government (by voting).
when a government has a foreign policy, this is a method of control of people by the government. But these people do not have a vote for or against that government.
in the case of two countr ...[text shortened]... weaker country, regardless of the wishes of those people.
this does not seem at all democratic.
In terms of democracy, you have to imagine that anything you get from another country, regardless of their system of government, is like buying a car from your neighbour. He might be friends with you, but he'll still want a fair price for it. If he has a family, maybe he's consulted them, maybe he hasn't, but that's none of your concern. If instead he'd chosen to sell it to someone else, it'd be none of your business.
The problems come when another country is dependent on US help with something (eg Europe on defence), and the US uses this to 'lever' support for their policies in areas that are nothing to do with defence. To continue the neighbour analogy, suppose you let your neighbour borrow your car at weekends, and then asked him mow your lawn, threatening to cut off his access to your car if he didn't.
The point is, in this case the government wishes to continue with this policy of tit-for-tat, otherwise they wouldn't do it, and their opinions hopefully represent the people, so the deal should still be beneficial (or at least better than the alternative). However the deal might not be very good, because there are some things that the US alone can offer, so it can if you like charge monopolistic prices, like Microsoft.