[Peace-discuss] Kerry's foreign policy

[ppatton at uiuc.edu]

Kerry’s Progressive Internationalism: Achieving American 
Dominance Multilaterally
by Matthew Harwood
 

In his 2003 address to the Council on Foreign Relations, 
presidential candidate John Kerry disavowed the U.S. quest 
for empire as he criticized the Bush Administration’s foreign 
policy as “the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological 
foreign policy in modern history.” Instead of empire, Kerry 
will commit the United States to a “new progressive 
internationalism” buttressed by renewed alliance and enforced 
by a dominant US military.

Kerry’s “new” foreign policy has its roots in a policy paper 
entitled, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic 
National Security Strategy,” found at the Progressive Policy 
Institute (www.ppionline.org), a New Democrat think-tank. 
These New Democrats represent the conservative tilting wing 
of the Democratic Party.

Progressive internationalists define their strategy as 
a “tough minded internationalism,” that “occupies the vital 
center between the neo-imperial right and the non-
interventionalist left.” They advocate the “bold exercise of 
American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and 
international institutions.”

Their forebears include the Democratic Presidents of the 20th 
century who they credit with building the international 
institutions that led to global prosperity and global 
security. While they argue that they’re opposed to empire, 
these progressive internationalists honor presidencies that 
exhibited imperial strains such as Wilson’s invasion of 
Mexico, US sabotage of Italian elections under Truman, 
Kennedy’s attacks on Cuba and the invasion of Vietnam, 
Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War, and Clinton’s brutal 
use of bombing and sanctions against Iraq. These events are 
left unexplained and unexamined and beg the question as to 
how a democratic national security strategy differs from 
imperialism.

As a result, “Progressive Internationalism” reads like a 
saccharine strategy for US hegemony through a multilateral 
veil. The program calls for the US to again lead the free 
world by spreading the gospel of free-trade, open markets, 
and representative democracy cooperatively when possible, 
militarily if necessary.

Therefore the difference in foreign policy prescriptions is 
more public relations than a reformation. The ends remain the 
same while the means are tweaked a little. Progressive 
internationalists have no qualms about Bush’s use of force; 
rather it’s his undiplomatic unilateralist streak that they 
criticize. They advise multilateralism as the best means to 
achieving “American leadership.”

In a telling admission the progressive internationalists 
write that the Bush Doctrine of preemption will remain under 
the “new progressive internationalism.” Correctly, the 
authors observe preemption was an “option every president has 
quietly reserved.” Bush’s problem was he used preemption as a 
bludgeon rather than keeping it in reserve.

Kerry knows not to flaunt the powers of preemption. According 
to David Sanger in the NY Times, “Kerry would reserve the 
right to act preemptively,” but “he would never make it a 
core doctrine of American foreign policy.” Moreover, Kerry’s 
more diplomatic approach would “be backed by undoubted 
military might.”

Although strategies differ, the goal remains the same for 
both Republican and Democrat Presidents: expand the scope of 
US power. The only way to do this is to ensure the US has 
access to and control over foreign markets and resources, 
especially Near East oil. Since not all governments will 
comply with US demands, US foreign policy must become 
interventionalist. If it didn’t, the US couldn’t ensure it 
got the oil, markets, and investment needed to maintain 
American living standards.

Regardless who wins come November, ensuring our access and 
control over Near East oil may be the most critical goal of 
US foreign policy for two reasons. First, the US needs oil. 
As the 2001 National Energy Report warns, imported energy 
supplies will make up two-thirds of our demand by 2020. 
Analyzing the report for The Nation, international security 
specialist Michael Klare wrote “the reports calls on the 
White House to place a high priority on increasing US access 
to Persian Gulf supplies.” The war in Iraq may have solved 
much of this problem.

Second, U.S. control over Near East oil will give America 
tremendous leverage over economic upstart China. Some U.S. 
foreign policy analysts fear we may lose our traditional 
sphere of influence in Asia if China continues to 
industrialize the way it has been. With control over Near 
East oil, US can manipulate Chinese economic growth.

Because of these foreign policy concerns, the US’s role in 
the world shouldn’t change dramatically under Kerry. 
Americans can count on the continued construction of 
permanent military bases in the region, soldiers in Iraq, and 
continued support for authoritarian regimes throughout the 
Near East.

Still, a Kerry foreign policy remains a step forward. If 
elected, Kerry will repair relations with the industrialized 
world and make the US more diplomatically inclined thereby 
avoiding more war. Nevertheless, our continued presence in 
the Near East will increase terrorist recruitment and America 
will continue to brandish its military dominance conveniently 
when diplomacy fails within the developing world. The empire 
will continue, just less abrasively.

Matthew Harwood, of Morrisville, PA, is a free-lance writer. 
He can be reached at mharwood31 at comcast.net.