[Peace-discuss] Democratic Front-Runners: Comparisons on Some Key Issues

[Morton K. Brussel]

For those in the meeting tonight who are unclear about the respective  
Dem candidates' views on war and peace, this article from  
Commondreams.org:

The Foreign Policy Agenda of the Democratic Front-Runners:  
Comparisons on Some Key Issues
by Stephen Zunes

Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly  
disappointed regarding the similarity in the foreign policy positions  
of the three remaining candidates - Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator  
Barack Obama, and former Senator John Edwards - with a realistic shot  
at the Democratic Party presidential nomination. However, there are  
still some real discernable differences to be taken into account.  
Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even  
minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the  
lives of millions of people.

Foreign Policy Advisors

Much understanding of what kind of foreign policy a potential  
president might have is by examining who is providing them which  
their information and advice on international affairs.

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of  
President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former  
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security  
Adviser Sandy Berger. Virtually all were strong supporters of the  
invasion of Iraq and some - such as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and  
Michael O’Hanlon - also supported President Bush’s “surge.” Her team  
also includes some centrist opponents of the war, however, including  
retired General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of  
State - is Richard Holbrooke, who prior to the invasion of Iraq  
insisted that that country posed “a clear and present danger at all  
times,” insisted that Bush had “ample justification” to invade Iraq,  
and has written that those who protested against the war and foreign  
governments which opposed the invasion “undoubtedly encouraged”  
Saddam Hussein. Holbrooke has been severely criticized for his role  
as Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up  
Marcos in the Philippines and supporting Suharto’s repression in East  
Timor, as well as his culpability in the Kwangju massacre in South  
Korea.

There is every reason to suspect that Hillary Clinton as president  
would pursue a foreign policy very similar to that of her husband.

Senator John Edwards has a significantly smaller foreign policy team  
than his two major rivals, reflecting his stronger emphasis on  
domestic issues. Though arguably the most liberal of the three on  
economic policies and related matters, this is not reflected in whom  
Edwards has chosen to be his top foreign policy advisors: Mike  
Signer, a longtime national security adviser to Virginia senator Mark  
Warner, has advocated a policy of “exemplarism,” which he describes  
as “a militarily strong and morally ambitious version of American  
exceptionalism.” His other leading foreign policy advisor is Derek  
Chollet, a hawkish analyst who serves as a fellow at the Center for  
New American Security, a center-right think tank with close ties to  
the Pentagon.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers include mainstream  
strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic  
administrations, such as former National Security Advisors Zbigniew  
Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former Assistant Secretary of State  
Susan Rice and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. They have also  
included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the  
Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and  
Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress and former  
counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the  
noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha  
Power - author of the recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation  
of the United Nations in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal  
academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor  
records on human rights and international law, such as retired  
General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East  
Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the  
West Bank.

In contrast with Clinton’s foreign policy advisers, virtually all of  
Obama’s advisers opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. The Nation  
magazine noted that members of Obama’s foreign policy team, who also  
tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, are “more  
likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global  
development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama  
may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and  
crafting new approaches.”

Iraq

Both Clinton and Edwards were outspoken supporters of President  
George W. Bush’s request for Senate authorization to invade Iraq at  
the time and circumstances of his own choosing and were among the  
minority of Congressional Democrats to vote in favor of such  
authorization. Edwards was one of only six Democratic co-sponsors of  
the Senate resolution. Both Clinton and Edwards falsely claimed,  
despite the lack of any credible evidence, that Iraq had a dangerous  
arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons  
program, and sophisticated offensive delivery systems. Clinton went  
as far as falsely claiming that Iraq was actively supporting al- 
Qaeda. Both rejected the United States’ legal obligation to uphold  
the United Nations Charter’s prohibition against aggressive war.

Even after the U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq and the Bush  
administration acknowledged the absence of Iraqi WMDs and ties to Al- 
Qaeda, Clinton and Edwards continued to defend their support for the  
American conquest of that oil-rich country. Soon after he left the  
Senate in 2005, Edwards reversed his stance and formally apologized  
for his vote and his initial support for the war. Clinton, however,  
has refused to apologize to this day.

Obama, by contrast, opposed the war - even speaking at an anti-war  
rally in Chicago four months prior to the invasion - and argued that  
Iraq was not a threat to the United States or its neighbors.

Once he became a senator in 2005, however, Obama joined Clinton in  
supporting unconditional funding for the war, though he eventually  
began calling for a timetable for a withdrawal American troops, a  
position opposed by Clinton until last year. Both Obama and Clinton  
voted for the first time against Bush’s war funding proposal this  
past May and have continued to vote against unconditional funding  
subsequently.

The three candidates’ current positions on Iraq are markedly similar,  
all promising to begin withdrawing some troops immediately upon  
coming to office, but none promising to have all troops out by the  
end of their first term in 2013.

Based on the respective plans for Iraq they have put forward,  
however, Edwards and Obama are more likely to get more troops out  
sooner than would Clinton, who argues for a U.S. “military as well as  
political mission” in Iraq for the indefinite future for such  
purposes as countering Iranian influence, protecting the Kurdish  
minority, preventing a failed state, and supporting the Iraqi  
military. She also calls for a “continuing mission against al-Qaeda  
in Iraq” along with the obligation “to protect our civilian employees  
[and] our embassy.” Since most estimates of the numbers of troops  
needed to carry out these tasks range between 40,000 and 75,000, the  
best that can be hoped for under a Hillary Clinton presidency is that  
she would withdraw only about one-half to two-thirds of American  
combat forces within a couple years of her assuming office. Edwards  
has called for an immediate reduction of forces and a complete  
withdrawal of combat troops within a year. However, he has called on  
maintaining sufficient military forces in Baghdad to protect the  
sprawling U.S. embassy complex as well American personnel elsewhere  
in that country. He has also called for sufficient U.S. military  
presence, perhaps in neighboring Kuwait, to “prevent genocide, a  
regional spillover of the civil war, or the establishment of an al  
Qaeda safe haven” as well as “a significant military presence in the  
Persian Gulf.”

Obama argues that U.S. troops may need to maintain a “reduced but  
active presence,” to “protect logistical supply points” and “American  
enclaves like the Green Zone” as well as “act as rapid reaction  
forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists,” but has  
pledged to withdraw combat troops within 16 months. Obama recognizes  
the need to “make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq” and  
has increasingly emphasized that most U.S. troops that remain in the  
area should be “over the horizon,” such as in Kuwait, rather than in  
Iraq itself. He has called for diplomatic and humanitarian  
initiatives to address some of the underlying issues driving the  
ongoing conflicts and has also pledged to launch “a comprehensive  
regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an  
end of the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the  
suffering of the Iraqi people.”


Iran

Both Clinton and Edwards argued, up until last year, that the Bush  
administration had not been tough enough against Iran. Clinton  
insisted several months ago that the White House “lost critical time  
in dealing with Iran,” accusing the administration of choosing to  
“downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations” as well as  
“standing on the sidelines.” Similarly, Edwards told an Israeli  
audience last year that “the U.S. hasn’t done enough to deal with  
what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the  
sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the U.S.  
abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake.”  
Both Clinton and Edwards falsely accused Iran last year of having an  
active nuclear weapons program, demonstrating that neither had  
learned their lesson from naively believing the Bush administration’s  
false accusations regarding Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program  
five years earlier.

More recently, however, Clinton and Edwards have joined Obama in  
criticizing the Bush administration’s threats of precipitous military  
strikes against Iran. Despite this, all three have refused to rule  
out as president taking unilateral U.S. military action against that  
country to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment targeting Iran,  
which called for the United States to declare the largest branch of  
Iran’s armed services to be a terrorist organization, which many  
interpreted as providing the Bush administration with a rationale for  
going to war. Her vote has been harshly criticized by both Edwards  
and Obama.

Meanwhile, Clinton has harshly criticized Obama for his calls for  
direct negotiations with Iran on areas of mutual concern, calling  
such diplomatic initiatives “naïve.”

Israel and Its Neighbors:

All three candidates have defended Israel’s ongoing repression  
against the Palestinians and Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon, as well as  
insisting that the onus of responsibility for the failure of the  
peace process lies with the Palestinians under occupation rather than  
the Israeli occupiers. Both Clinton and Edwards have defended  
Israel’s settlement policy and the construction of a separation  
barrier deep inside the West Bank. Clinton has been the most  
outspoken of the three in supporting Israel’s right- wing government  
and its violations of international humanitarian law and has gone as  
far as insisting Palestinian violence is not in reaction to the  
Israeli occupation, but simply a result of anti-Semitism and anti- 
Israel propaganda.

Edwards and Obama have been less visible in their support for Israeli  
policies than Clinton, and Obama has been somewhat more nuanced in  
his wording, such as also mentioning Israeli responsibilities in  
moving the peace process forward. In addition, Obama took a notably  
more moderate position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict  
until a couple years ago, then allying more with the Israeli peace  
movement, but has swung well to the right, taking positions similar  
to Edwards and Clinton, since seeking national office.

Al-Qaeda, Afghanistan and Pakistan:

All three candidates support the war in Afghanistan, with both  
Clinton and Edwards joining other senators in voting in favor of  
authorizing military action against that country in the wake of the  
9/11 attacks. All three call for an escalation in U.S. military  
operations in Afghanistan, though Edwards stresses the use of Special  
Forces for targeted commando strikes rather than simply increasing  
bombing and traditional combat units.

All three stress the need for applying diplomatic and economic  
pressure on Pakistan for greater cooperation on counter-terrorism  
issues and have threatened bombings and incursions into Pakistan to  
root out al-Qaeda cells.

On broader counter-terrorism issues, Edwards and Obama have  
emphasized improved intelligence and greater international  
cooperation as well as preventative measures, with Obama in  
particular calling for a vigorous policy to prevent the emergence of  
“failed states” and supporting dramatically-increased funding for  
sustainable development and education in areas prone to influence by  
radical Islamist ideologies.

Nuclear Weapons

All three candidates stress the importance of taking ballistic  
missiles off of their current hair-trigger alert status, lessening  
U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons, opposing the Bush administration’s  
efforts to build a new generation of nuclear delivery systems and  
supporting a comprehensive test ban treaty. Clinton and Obama have  
criticized aspects of the Bush administration’s missile defense  
program, but support the continued development of missile defense  
capabilities.

Obama and Edwards have called for the eventual elimination of all  
nuclear weapons. Edwards takes the strongest position on non- 
proliferation as a result of his opposition to nuclear power, but all  
three candidates maintain the Bush administration’s double-standards,  
such as threatening Iran over simply the prospects of developing  
nuclear weapons while not opposing the already-existing nuclear  
arsenals of allies like India, Pakistan and Israel. Obama and Edwards  
have pledged to work vigorously to better secure the world’s nuclear  
weapons materials and to negotiate with Russia and other nuclear  
powers for a dramatic reduction in nuclear stockpiles.

While Clinton has emphasized military means of deterring additional  
countries from developing nuclear weapons, Obama has emphasized U.S.  
obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to take serious  
steps towards disarmament, arguing, “As we do this, we’ll be in a  
better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road  
if we firmly abide by those rules. It’s time to stop giving countries  
like Iran and North Korea an excuse.”

Human Rights

Both Clinton and Edwards voted for a 2002 amendment that prohibits  
the United States from cooperating in any way with the International  
Criminal Court (ICC) in its prosecution of individuals responsible  
for serious crimes against humanity, restricts U.S. foreign aid to  
countries that support the ICC and authorizes the president of the  
United States to use military force to free individuals from the  
United States or allied countries detained by the ICC. Edwards has  
since reversed his position and now supports the United States  
joining the ICC while Clinton and Obama are open to eventual  
ratification if their alleged concerns regarding liability of U.S.  
armed services personnel are addressed.

All three candidates have displayed a tendency to exaggerate human  
rights abuses by regimes and movements opposed by the United States  
while minimizing human rights abuses by pro-U.S. regimes. Clinton has  
gone as far as sponsoring Senate resolutions explicitly contradicting  
findings of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other  
reputable human rights groups when they are critical of the policies  
of some U.S. allies.

Edwards has called for more aggressive international action against  
mass killings in places like Darfur and Uganda, though - as with  
Clinton and Obama - his record regarding repression by U.S.-backed  
regimes is decidedly mixed, with all three having supported as  
senators unconditional military aid to a number of governments  
engaged in human rights abuses. Edwards has called for dramatic  
increases in spending for development programs aimed at the world’s  
poor, particularly in health care and education, as well as for an  
expansion of support for microcredit programs.

Obama has been quite critical of U.S. support for dictatorial regimes  
like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and has called for greater pressure on  
these governments to improve human rights, clean up corruption and  
support greater equality and social justice. Recognizing that,  
despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration has “done little to  
advance democracy around the world,” Obama has promised to “focus on  
achieving concrete outcomes that will advance democracy.” While  
calling for increased U.S. government financial support for  
independent institutions supporting pro-democracy movements abroad,  
he recognizes that “direct financial assistance from the U.S.  
government will not always be welcome or beneficial.” He has also  
called for increased support - through foreign aid, debt relief,  
technical assistance and investment - for countries undergoing post- 
conflict and post-authoritarian transitions.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at  
the University of San Francisco.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share  
and discover new web pages.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080127/6726d7b9/attachment.htm