Hillary Clinton and John McCain unfurled their foreign policy agendas in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs. Hillary used her essay to move her position further away than ever from the Neo Cons' "democratize the world by Monday" position. McCain, instead, showed that he forgot nothing and learned less. (Other candidates have preceded them or will follow. For a discussion of the position taken by Barack Obama in his Foreign Affairs article, click here).
Senator McCain's new essay could have been written by a Neo Con in 1995, 2000, or maybe even late as 2003. But even in those days, it would have taken an extremely untutored politician to hold that nations can be democratized in short order, especially where the sociological conditions are not well prepared. The title of McCain's essay says it all: "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom." As he sees it, "the protection and promotion of the democratic ideal, at home and abroad, will be the surest source of security and peace for the century that lies before us." Well, if wishes would be horses, beggars could ride.
McCain touts the successes achieved on the democracy-promotion front by the Bush administration and calls for more of the same. He praises the "historic elections" in Afghanistan. He calls for adopting various economic punitive measures to reverse Russia's "diminishing political freedoms ...". More broadly, McCain would pursue a revival of the Cold War agenda of "democratic solidarity"; he calls for establishing a "League of Democracies" to "serve as a unique handmaiden of freedom". He seems not to have noted that this is exactly what Madeleine Albright tried to do during the Clinton years--to little avail
McCain proceeds by saying that, once elected, he would "seize the opportunities afforded by the unprecedented liberty and prosperity in the world today to build a peace that will last a century." Excuse me, Senator? Are you referring to the military junta in Burma? The election of Hamas in Palestine? The crumbling of democracy in Latin America? Did you forget the bitter experiences of nominal democratization in Iraq and Afghanistan? And did you forget Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria? And what about the regimes that followed the popular uprisings in the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan? Or maybe you are thinking about Tajikistan and Kazakhstan? An old man might be entitled to become lost in rosy fantasies, but not a man who seeks to lead us in a cruel and harsh world.
The title of Hillary's essay is revealing : "Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century". That is, she puts security first, which is where it belongs.
I have spent too many hours with Hillary, in White House dinners, at the Renaissance Weekend, and elsewhere to be a starry-eyed fan. Still, this essay nails it. She writes: "as we know at home and as we see today in Iraq and Afghanistan, opportunity cannot flourish without basic security." Her use of the term "basic" is essential. We previously defined it as "... the conditions under which most people, most of the time, are able to go about their lives, venture onto the street, work, study and participate in public life (politics included), without acute fear of being killed or injured--without being terrorized. To seek full-fledged security, to obviate all threats, to end fear, puts us on the slippery slope at the bottom of which is a police state." (See www.securityfirstbook.com).
Clinton recognizes that forming a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan is a "daunting task". In Iraq, her policy would call for "helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government." Regarding Russia, although she criticizes Putin's repressive policies, Clinton would focus first of all on issues that concern security; ours, theirs and that of others. She would put high priority "on issues of high national importance, such as thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons in Russia and the former Soviet republics..."
In general, although Clinton views the promotion of democracy and freedom as a central component of US global leadership, she argues that "we must return to a pragmatic willingness to look at the facts on the ground and make decisions based on evidence rather than ideology." The contrast with McCain could not be clearer. At least in this round, Hillary takes gold; McCain - a wooden nickel.
****
Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at the George Washington University and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale University Press).
www.securityfirstbook.com
Was it TV? The advertising that tells us we'll be happy once we buy...
Was it Big Box stores and the global economy?
The Dollar Store full of pre-landfill crap?
SUV soccer mom?
These are the values that merged democracy and capitalism.
IF Hillary isn't elected president I don't see another woman in the race for another 50 years. It will be discouraging to women in this country knowing the most experienced, a genius could not be elected because of prejudiced country of people.
I think perhaps there are better qualified women out there and I for one wouldn't hesitate to support one as I have supported numerous female candidates in the past. It just won't be Hillary. You can bet your last dime on that.
we will go backj to transparency in government because the stakes are too high for any more of the Bush/Cheney type of governmant and secrecy. I can hear the shredders working day and night in all branches of the
corrupted and inept agencies run by cronies of the war profiteers running the show. How many more will write books of their regrets in not coming forward sooner and get absolution ?
There ya go -- in a nutshell, the Repugs' strategy should Senator Clinton (she has a last name - whodathunkit?) win the nomination. To wit: they're going to be rehashing the 1990s over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Hopefully it will blow up in their faces. If it doesn't and the US electorate lets itself be suckered once again, than the US deserves whatever it gets. Unfortunately, that will swamp quite a few boats in the rest of the world as well.
Ugh! Unbelievable we have 59M Bush voters and that some are even still supporters. He doesn't represent anything EXCEPT his baggage and favours owed!
2. Yes
The US has no credibiity as a "promoter" of democracy - both because its own form of democracy is thoroughly corrupt, and because in pursuing its commercial interestd since the Second World War, it has been far more active in stamping out democracy and prosperity.
America!!!Get real!!!
Korea, Vietnam, Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. never mind the disasterous African episodes, so many other manipulated killings and of course Israel.
We have won the cold war.
Ha Ha Ha!!
It is never you it is always them.
Ha Ha Ha!
You are war mongers and do not even know the difference between propaganda and diplomacy. Your government directs enormous amounts of money to the end of keeping you confused. your politicians are past masters of the art. They even confuse themselves.
Yet it is all so simple: peace is the Way, brothers, and until you see that you are doomed for even if you 'win' the wars you will have to distrust your brother, including sister Clinton.
You are at the crossroads.
"I don't know how you pursue al-Qaida without engaging them in combat," Senator Clinton in the recent debate.
What does it mean?
I don't know how you fight them without engaging in combat.
A presidantial candidate?
Duh!
Sure you didn't intend to write, "That is, she puts Security First, which is where it belongs"?
You ever get the feeling that everyone's got way better weed than you can get?
Reading his comments on the glorious state of world affairs makes me yearn for Baghdad Bob to counterpoint.
None so far, although he did do a pretty tasteless parody-type rendition of a classic Beach tune by substituting the words, "Bomb-bomb-bomb ---- bomb-bomb-Iran".
Let me help.
e.g. torture:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/if-i-had-a-beer-with-hill_b_39363.html
Instead of attacking torture - a position our generals would have us take to protect our troops, and one that reflects our American values - she went for the pro-torture position advocated by Alan Dershowitz. That is, she said that some "severity" (waterboarding, etc.) is justified under extreme circumstances (the utterly discredited 'ticking time bomb' scenario), so there should be a "lawful authority" (i.e. a torture court) to provide "checks and balances."
Then Bill Clinton weighed in with the same position, That move delighted Dershowitz
So I would ask Sen. Clinton to speak to America's generals about torture. I'd suggest she speak to the intelligence experts who remind us that the information collected during torture is rarely usable, especially when time is limited. And I'd want her to consider the many leaders who have said America's lost its position as a world influence leader because of its use of torture.
e.g. ME 'peace' process:
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070912hillaryjerusalem.html
In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes not only to praise the Jewish state but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection than the Bush administration.
The position paper goes so far as to outflank President Bush from the right.
It says Clinton, "believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."
Clinton's paper comes at a time when the Bush administration is quietly pressing the Israelis and the Palestinians to come up with a final-status outline ahead of a November peace conference, one that would address, among other issues, redrawn borders and a shared Jerusalem.
Spokesmen for Clinton denied that the language was timed to undercut the latest initiative.
Sounds good to me.
It'd be interesting to look at writing styles...
Mr. Etzioni, you mention the collapse of democracy in Latin America, but how do you define collapse? The people of Venezuela elected Chavez and International observers said the election was clean. You mentioned Bolivia, was there fraud in that election? There was just an election in Argentina, in fact there have been elections all across Latin America ... I think that can be defined as democracy. The United States might not like the leaders being chosen in Latin America, anymore than they appreciated Hamas winning their election, or Hezbollah winning seats in Lebanon, but it isn't the duty of people in other countries to elect governments to please Washington.
I think democracy is growing in a healthy way around the World, but it just isn't the United States brand of democracy, or what the United States brand of democracy has tragically become.
As for Hillary, her entire career, her Foreign Policy and Domestic ideas/notions, her campaigns and her governance are all well thought through! She actually studies and researches before making a decision one way or the other! Even her Repuglican colleagues attest to the fact that she is one of the hardest working Senators and especially vis-a-vis her role on various committees
What a refreshing difference it will be in/with her Presidency as we are so used to the current DUMBocracy that the incumbent has bestowed upon Americans ...
Is that why she's been a Bush lap puppy all this time? Or didn't YOU study the subject enough?
A "refreshing difference". Different from WHAT? You'd better rethink that position buddy. You want another four years of Bush then you go right ahead.