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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Here the wish is father to the thought, I think.  Zunes seems to want to 
to breathe life into Obama's faint claims to be a "progressive."  Bill 
Clinton, of all people, was closer to the truth when he pointed out that 
Obama's claims of consistent opposition to the war were a "fairy tale." 
  --CGE

Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> 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_ 
> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/07/080107fa_fact_power> 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_ <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman> 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_ 
> <http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html> 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_ <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech> 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_ 
> <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html> 
> 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 _ 
> <http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin>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 _ 
> <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html>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 
> _ 
> <http://www.senate.gov/%7Eclinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=250529>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 _ 
> <http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223>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_ 
> <http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kyl-lieberman.pdf> 
> 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 _ 
> <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html>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_ 
> <http://www.cgdev.org/doc/blog/obama_strengthen_security.pdf>, 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/ <http://www.stephenzunes.org/>/ 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.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss