NationStates Jolt Archive

Although I ususally dispare at the idea of trying to start an actually well informed reasoned discussion here, I'll slam my head into the wall once again.

US foreign policy post-cold war has essentially been the same from Bush I through the Clinton years and through the Bush II years - ideologically based promotion of free market democracies, often at bayonet point.
IMNSHO, the 2008 election is primarily about this issue - whither US foreign policy.

Some points to consider:

Foreign policy questions for the next president
Published: February 17, 2008

How the next president plans to handle the disastrous Iraq war is the most important foreign policy question of this year's campaign. But it is not the only one.

President George W. Bush's mismanagement reaches far beyond Iraq. He has torn up international treaties, bullied and alienated old friends, and enabled old and new enemies. Before Americans choose a president they will need to know how he or she plans to rebuild America's military strength and its moral standing and address a host of difficult challenges around the world.

Here is our list of questions. It is by no means comprehensive.

International leadership

Too many people who long admired this country as a beacon of democratic values have come to suspect and fear it. What steps would the candidates take to revive America's reputation and its ability to lead? Would they immediately shut the Guantànamo Bay prison, commit to a global treaty to address climate change and press the Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?

China

How would the candidates handle relations with a rising China? How would they manage a potential military competition while also encouraging democratic reforms there? How would the candidates persuade Beijing to help dismantle North Korea's nuclear program and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, or to play a constructive role in Sudan and Burma? How would they conduct relations with Taiwan?

Nonproliferation

Bush tore up arms control treaties, offered to sell civilian nuclear technology to India, then wondered why so many countries weren't more outraged by Iran's nuclear misbehavior. Do the candidates have practical plans to halt the spread of nuclear weapons? Would they commit themselves to deep cuts in America's nuclear arsenal, forswear the development of new nuclear weapons, and persuade the Russians to do the same? If the candidates see nuclear energy as a way to control global warming, how would they ensure that its spread does not lead to the spread of nuclear weapons?

Russia

President Vladimir Putin has crushed rivals, closed most independent news organizations and all but extinguished hopes for democracy. Washington needs Moscow's cooperation on a host of dangerous issues. How would the candidates manage relations with an increasingly autocratic and increasingly powerful Russia?

Defense spending

The annual military budget of the United States is about $500 billion, with nearly $200 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a 62 percent increase in overall defense spending during Bush's tenure. And there is no relief in sight. The U.S. military - in terms of both its people and equipment - is badly strained. Even a new president committed to a swift withdrawal from Iraq will have to keep asking for large budgets to repair the damage and ensure that the country is ready to face new dangers.

There will have to be trade-offs. What weapons systems would the candidates cancel? What new acquisitions would they seek? Should the Pentagon make nation-building a prime mission? Should the State Department play a larger role in post-conflict reconstruction?

Use of force

All presidents rightly reserve the right to take military action to protect the national interest. What has Iraq taught the candidates about the use of force? Do they believe in preemption or the use of preventive force? What about humanitarian interventions?

Terrorism

Is the war on terrorism a military fight? Should it even be called a war? How would the candidates improve America's intelligence capabilities and elicit more cooperation around the world? What would they do to oust Al Qaeda from Pakistan? How would they ensure Pakistan's cooperation while also pressing for democratic reforms that are essential for its long-term stability? What is their strategy to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda from regaining control in Afghanistan?

Middle East

It is far too little and very late, but Bush finally launched an Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative. What should the United States, Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states be doing to increase the chances of success? Given that Hamas controls Gaza, is a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine really viable? How can the United States both protect Israel and encourage it to negotiate a peace settlement?

Iran

Iran continues to defy the UN Security Council by enriching uranium - the hardest part of building a bomb. How clear and present is the danger? What are the candidates willing to offer Iran in exchange for giving up its nuclear efforts? If Iran shows no interest, are there realistic military options? Must Iran also cut all support for Hezbollah and Hamas? Can Iran be contained without a military confrontation?

North Korea

Since Bush took office, Pyongyang has tested a nuclear device and produced enough fuel for 10 or more nuclear weapons. A deal to dismantle its nuclear program appears to have stalled. Would the candidates continue those negotiations, offer additional incentives to speed up denuclearization or look for new ways to pressure Pyongyang?

Iraq

On Iraq, there are still many unanswered questions. Most of the discussion during the campaign has been stuck on the past (who supported the war or not). Voters need to know more about what the candidates would do from their first day in office. Whether they plan to stay or leave, how would they accelerate political reconciliation there? What would they do to ensure that Iraq's chaos does not spill beyond its borders?

Americans deserve to hear the candidates' answers, long before they go to the polls.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/opinion/edquestions.php

So, where should US foreign policy be headed?

International Leadership
I'm thinking climate change offers a great opportunity to regain some global confidence. It's an issue that all the sides generally understand the need to do something about while simultaneously recognising that going alone doesn't help anyone but hurts them. As the biggest emitter and the biggest trading partner with the soon-to-be usurper of that particular throne, the US with a committed President could take a leadership position that wouldn't have to piss everyone off.

China
I wouldn't think a great change is realistic or would achieve anything. Perhaps sitting down with the Taiwanese government to update the US' involvement in the dispute to a more sensible, hands-off approach would help. Working together on North Korea has been good for both sides so it should go on. Domestic human rights is not an issue where Washington can really apply any pressure, so I'd keep going with pointing out abuses and leaving it at that. As for Sudan or Burma...as long as the US keeps going in places like Equatorial Guinea, it would be a bit hypocritical to criticise China about it.

Nonproliferation
Idunno, there's not much I can think of. Maybe getting Israel to come clean about its nukes and work on an update for the NPT - but that'd be hard and wouldn't get anywhere in the current climate.

Russia
Get harsher in criticising Putin and look at Chechnya in more depth would be a start. Actually making sure foreign companies suffering abuse by the Russian government drag them in front of international commercial arbitrators or courts is another.

Defense spending
I don't know enough about the nature of the spending to make a good judgement. But a review of the pricing of defense contracts and considering getting more equipment from foreign manufacturers in Europe might save a lot of money. But try to get Congress to agree on that.

Use of force
Closer cooperation with the UN is a must. If the US puts the intervention card on the table with situations like Darfur early on and is ready to either provide a lot of troops or at least the air power to make sure African Union soldiers can actually survey, cover and protect significant areas (transport helicopters and gunships, drones, satellites, B-52s etc), then the discussion at the UN must necessarily come to the actually usefulness of military intervention in protecting people and/or solving the conflict. Both sides would learn from that sort of discussion, even if other SC members end up blocking it.

Terrorism
Really use the leverage on the Pakistani government - if the ISI doesn't start helping properly and the links between Islamists and the military aren't made clear, we stop buying you all your toys. Pakistani counter-terrorism units with American air support and spy drones overhead seem like the best idea to try and see whether Bin Laden could perhaps be captured afterall.

Afghanistan needs to involve more troops. Unless the US and Britain want to provide them, those need to come from Europe. Ramp up the pressure on countries like Germany, force them to face the issues domestically: both German politicians and the public know that there is nothing wrong about a request for more help, they're just outraged because it's uncomfortable to be reminded of it. So keep extracting concessions at every opportunity.

And I think the President needs to change the rules of the war on terrorism. He needs to be on national TV (and make sure the speech makes it to Al Jazeera and everywhere in the world) saying that torture and extralegal procedures aren't the way to do this, that America has principles and would like to live up to them. And then that needs to be followed with action: disband the secret prisons and Gitmo, try suspects and detainees in the US according to US law. If necessary, see whether American criminal law needs strengthening to include some terrorism-related activities.

Middle East
I think the best option is to keep pressuring both sides and otherwise wait. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians have particularly good or inspirational leaders at the moment, no deal made would stand a very good chance of lasting.

Iran
Realise that Bush lost this one. In many ways Iran and the US have similar interests in the Middle East, at the very least the two countries could have a very good marriage of convenience. So rebuild diplomatic relations, while making it clear that Washington, while respecting Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, would prefer Iran not to make weapons. In return, perhaps getting those F-14s back in the air? Also remind the Mullahs (not Ahmadinejad, when possible he should be treated as a line to the Supreme Council, taking away his ability to make independent, stupid decisions) what happened when Ghadafi came clean about his WMD programs.

North Korea
Keep going as before, with lots of Chinese and ROK cooperation. Wait until Kim dies and see whether his successor is open to change - but be ready then with a big ass aid package that will really make it worth it.

Iraq
Stay indefinitely, but with Petraeus in charge and constantly on the phone to Iraqi leaders. Tie the presence to political progress - if the government in Baghdad doesn't get its act together, continued US presence would be useless and going home is the best option. Make that clear to everyone.

--------

But those are just my opinions.

Look, the real reason the world hates America is because America's losing. If America was winning, like it was during the 40's, the 60's, and the 80's, or if somebody desperately needed our help, we would be liked, we would be respected, and if we call it all a bluff now, we will trade in what little we have (frightened respect) for a position as a weakened hated former foe delivered right in to the hands of an executioners noose. There's only one thing America can do, and that is win. Everybody loves a winner. Everybody spits on the loser. It's just how people are - they're cowards. They'll never admit this but it's true. That's why history is almost always written from the winners side.

Depends on who's president. Here's my best guess:


Clinton - The usual. (before Bush) Relations between the major players stays the same, and events/genocides/etc. will take their course until it looks like the wrong people will get control of a nuclear arsenal or threaten a US interest, in which case Clinton will get tough and lay the smack down.

Obama - you'll see a lot of US engagement in world affairs with emphasis on diplomacy, foreign aid, and coalition-building. It might build long-term goodwill and social capital in developing nations that could pay off big-time in the long run. It might irritate leaders of rogue/semi-rogue nations to the extent that there could be some mini-crises.

McCain - Eek; it all depends on how Iraq turns out.

If America was winning, like it was during the 40's, the 60's, and the 80's
Oh, there was a WHOLE LOT of losing going on those days by Americans.
Not the least of which, fashion sense.

I'd say the US is at the stage of neoliberal idealism, that is a period of capitalism whereby the bourgeois want to expand their capitalist influence into other countries and go beyond borders, and thus feel strong in their class war. It is also at the same time on the edge of economic decline and troubles, in many ways it could be compared to the 'collapse' of laissez fair liberalism of the 18th century, and the coming of welfare capitalism and fascism to ensure bourgeois supremacy.