Do lado Republicano, o ex-governador do estado de Arkansas Mike Huckabee venceu a primeira batalha na longa caminhada para a Casa Branca, ao vencer adversarios de cariz como o veterano John MCain, o ex-Presidente da Camara de Nova Iorque, Ruddi Giuliani bem como o seu principal oponente, o magnate Romney!
Segundo observadores atentos a vitoria do ex-governador em Iowa pode se explicada pelo seu passado pastoral, uma vez que os habitantes de Iowa sao cristaos devotos!
O grande desafio para Huckabee sera proxima semana em New Hampshire, um estado que parece ter simpatias diferentes das dos eleitores de Iowa! Conseguira o 'filho do mecanico', vencer uma vez mais o milionario? Esta e a pergunta que muitos analistas e observadoes colocam! A ver vamos!
Nesta campanha, a palavra magica em ambas campanhas, Democrata e Republicana, parece ter sete letras: MUDANCA!
Para mais pormenores viajemos na companhia de MICHAEL SCHERER, em De Moines, Capital de Iowa!
'The talented messenger beat the man with the money. The saver of souls beat the savior of the Winter Olympics. The son of a mechanic with crooked teeth beat the corporate titan with a superhero chin.
Less than an hour after the Republican caucuses began, cable news called Iowa for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ended the evening with an impressive nine point victory over Mitt Romney, the one-time frontrunner with deep pockets. The ballroom at Huckabee's headquarters at the Embassy Suites had already burst into cheers: "We like Mike! We like Mike! We like Mike!" Before long, the candidate emerged, backed by his most photogenic supporter, Chuck Norris, in brown lumberjack plaid, to soak up the moment and warn of the long road ahead.
"I wish it was all over tonight and we could celebrate the whole thing," Huckabee told the crowd. "But unfortunately if this were a marathon we have only run half of it, but we have run it well."
Within hours Huckabee would be on a plane, shared with his traveling press corps, for the next hurdle in his long-shot bid for the White House. He knows as well as anyone that the evangelicals who lifted him to victory in Iowa will not follow him to New Hampshire, where he still polls in single digits - fourth place. Once again, he will face candidates who are far better funded and organized. His New Hampshire staff - currently just six full-time people - is less than half of what he had in Iowa.
But he will, for the first time, be able to campaign as a clear winner. Aides remained confident that Huckabee could continue to use his rhetorical talents to earn free-media exposure, which is central to the campaign's strategy. "Each and every one of you in this room have the power to carry a message," said Ed Rollins, the Huckabee campaign chairman, in a press conference following the victory party.
The rest is still very much a work in progress. After a year of campaigning, Huckabee still lacks some of the core pieces of a national front-runner campaign. Many of his policy proposals, both foreign and domestic, have not yet been fleshed out. His research department is thinly staffed, and his press shop is constantly overwhelmed. His fundraising operation remains a bit of an unproven mystery. Chip Saltsman, the campaign manager, said the conversation about new hires would begin on the overnight plane ride. "This is a campaign that has been taking fire nationally for a while now," he said. "We knew we were going to have to get bigger."
For weeks, Huckabee sustained an intense onslaught of negative attacks from Romney, both on television and in mailings. But in the end, entrance polls suggested that the attacks had failed to dent Huckabee's golden-boy image. But as he moves forward he may look back on his Iowa experience as a springtime walk through knee-high corn. By winning Iowa, he only temporarily defeated Romney, and in the process he gained new rivals, in John McCain and, perhaps, Rudy Giuliani. He is also sure to attract new scrutiny from the national political press, which has little influence among Iowa voters, but has already shown distain for Huckabee's regular stumbles on the stump, especially in discussions of foreign policy.
Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, also faces two long weeks before the next state with a significant evangelical population, South Carolina, goes to the polls. The campaign hoped to bridge the gap with his considerable talents as a speaker, both before large crowds and in more intimate settings. "We are going to compete in every state," said Saltsman. "We are going to depend on Gov. Huckabee and his great ability to communicate."
If nothing else, Huckabee's decisive victory in Iowa has established him for the first time as a serious contender for the White House, despite the doubts of many in the Republican establishment. When asked Thursday night about the lack of establishment support in the previous months, Saltsman quipped, "I would say a few are emailing me right now."
In his victory speech, Huckabee came close to gloating about his victory over the doubters, who have said for months that he could not win with such an ill-funded operation. "People really are more important than the purse, and what a great lesson for America to learn," he told the cheering crowd. "Tonight I hope we will forever change how Americans look at their political system." In http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080104/us_time/canhuckabeestayontop?submit=Done
3 hours ago
7 comments:
Behind the Iowa Results
What Worked, What Went Wrong on the Campaign Trail
January 4, 2008 12:37 p.m.
THE REPUBLICANS
Iowa caucusgoers were faced with a stark choice: Mike Huckabee, Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, or Mitt Romney, buttoned-down former governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Huckabee rode a late surge of support from passionate evangelical voters, while Mr. Romney used his skills as a management consultant to build a powerful ground organization.
The third candidate at the top of the national polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, opted out of competing in Iowa, where his liberal social views were unlikely to win him much support.
* * *
MIKE HUCKABEE'S REMARKABLE VICTORY in Iowa was fueled by a powerful evangelical voter base attracted to his unwavering views on social issues and God-infused message from the stump. His strong sense of humor, master storytelling and populist promise to represent Main Street over Wall Street added to his appeal.
Mr. Huckabee advertised himself as a consistent conservative and a Christian leader, both implicit digs at Mr. Romney, who once held more liberal views on abortion and gay rights, and whose Mormonism made some Christians uncomfortable.
Mr. Romney led the race for most of 2007. But by late November, Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, had taken the lead as religious voters frustrated with better-funded competitors gravitated to the candidate seen as most dedicated to their issues.
Mr. Huckabee told audiences that victory would shake the political world and, indeed, the former Arkansas governor overcame a massive financial mismatch. Mr. Romney spent a total of $7 million on TV ads over the course of the Iowa campaign to Mr. Huckabee's $1.4 million, according to an independent estimate. Over the last three weeks, much of the Romney spending went to a barrage of negative ads attacking Mr. Huckabee's record on immigration, crime and foreign policy.
But Mr. Huckabee resisted putting attacks of his own on the air, convinced that Iowa voters would respond to an optimistic, positive campaign. Just three days ago, he was set to run a harsh ad attacking Mr. Romney, only to pull it at the last minute. The move was ridiculed by the national press as a ploy to have it both ways, but played well into Iowans' sense that he was above the fray.
"Every piece of political advice is you got to go and attack those guys right back," he said on New Year's Day in Council Bluffs. "It came down to, if a man gains the whole world and loses his own soul, what does it profit him?" he said, quoting Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. "And I decided, even the presidency, as important as it is, if I can't do it with self respect and can't do it with decency, it's not worth doing."
His supporters seemed to appreciate the move. "I don't think he's going to be out there running attack ads. I would hope that he doesn't," said Scott Beattie, a 41-year-old attorney from Pleasant Hill, who heard Mr. Huckabee speak in Indianola over the final weekend of campaigning.
Mr. Huckabee had been willing to criticize the Bush administration at times, particularly on foreign policy. His victory reflects the fact that even some Republicans are frustrated with the president.
While Mr. Romney sported a much more organized campaign with a network of supporters built over months, Mr. Huckabee relied on coalitions of voters -- pastors, home schoolers and supporters of the "fair tax," a national sales tax meant to replace federal income taxes -- passionately dedicated to his cause.
Until mid-November, Mr. Huckabee was firmly situated in the second tier of candidates. His campaign was jump-started by a TV ad called "Believe," where Mr. Huckabee laid out his case as a man whose life has been shaped by God. "Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me," he said in the spot.
It came as religious voters, who make up a significant portion of the Republican electorate, were shopping for a candidate after other choices disappointed for one reason or another.
"He's unabashed about his faith," said Greg Heartsill, 36, a fence contractor from Columbia, Iowa. "On the big issues, he's right in line with where I am."
-- Laura Meckler
* * *
WHEN IT CAME TIME TO MAKE A DECISION, Iowans opted against Mitt Romney. The millionaire from Massachusetts who spent more time and money than any of his opponents approached the Hawkeye contest as a science, not an art. But with his picture-perfect image, Mormon faith and pro-choice past, he struggled to connect to heartland residents.
Accusations that he lacked authenticity hit Mr. Romney the hardest shortly before Christmas, just as he was closing the gap with Mr. Huckabee in the Iowa polls. After saying on multiple occasions that he "saw" his dad march with Martin Luther King Jr., Mr. Romney faced new evidence to the contrary. Not only did he say that he didn't actually see the pair together, questions arose as to whether Mr. Romney's father ever marched with the civil-rights champion.
At a press conference in Fort Dodge, Iowa, on Dec. 20, he grew increasingly defensive with reporters and made it an argument about semantics. "If you look at the literature or the dictionary the term 'saw' includes being aware of in the sense I have described," he said. "I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort."
The press repeatedly outnumbered the supporters at many of his final events. Set in obscure locales, like the small airports where his chartered plane landed, the audience was often made up curious Iowans or of out-of-towners.
Voters also questioned his claims of being an everyman. A one-term governor, Mr. Romney regularly told Iowans he hasn't been in politics "long enough to be infected." Yet he made his first attempt at public office more than a decade ago in a failed bid for the U.S. Senate. His father was a three-term governor of Michigan and ran for president in 1968; his mother had her own failed bid for a seat in the U.S. Senate.
After his loss in Iowa, Mitt Romney arrives in New Hampshire in hopes of winning the high-stakes GOP presidential primary in the state next week. WSJ's Elizabeth Holmes follows the candidate from Iowa to New Hampshire.
Patti Ziegler, a Democrat who attended a Romney event, wasn't swayed by what she saw. She deemed him "likeable" but took issue with his comments about every child deserving a mother and a father -- standard stump fare for Mr. Romney. "I just know a lot of people who don't have that luxury," said Mrs. Ziegler, a teacher from Newton, Iowa. "I think he's a little bit out of touch with some of what really goes on."
Mr. Romney was also the first candidate to go negative -- and stay there. He released the first intra-party attack ad aimed at Mr. Huckabee Dec. 10, and another a week later. The spots were still in rotation on the eve of the caucus. In the final hours, he also took on Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had by and large conceded Iowa long ago.
"I understand Sen. McCain is back in Iowa. Welcome to Iowa, senator," he said Wednesday morning in Bettendorf, Iowa, during the opening remarks before a press conference.
The Energizer Bunny of candidates also showed some signs of waning in the final hours. He occasionally lost his train of thought and sometimes botched his words altogether. At a coffee shop in Altoona, Iowa, he stood on a box and declared: "I won't remember my friends here in Iowa. You've been an inspiration to me and Ann." His wife corrected him and Mr. Romney chuckled. "I said 'I won't forget.' I won't forget to remember. Thanks, sweetie."
-- Elizabeth Holmes
THE DEMOCRATS
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, bidding to become the nation's first African-American president, set himself apart from his two closest competitors -- New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards -- in the Iowa caucuses, winning the first contest in a long race.
* * *
A BIG KEY TO BARACK OBAMA'S WIN was a strategy he adopted early on of targeting voters who were otherwise unlikely to caucus. It was a risky, even foolhardy strategy, political operatives from rival camps said, mainly because it rarely works. For Democrats at least, caucusing remains a practice of the committed. Byzantine rules and time-consuming procedures mean that in many precincts, casting a vote can take up to two hours.
During the last week, Mr. Obama staged a poll of sorts, asking those who attended his rallies to raise their hands if they were first-time caucusgoers and whether they remained committed. Right up to the end, both groups remained large, with undecided voters routinely making up a quarter of the audiences.
"I want to create a new electoral math,'' Mr. Obama routinely told supporters. "I don't want to practice division, I want to practice addition.''
Unlike Mrs. Clinton and especially Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama cast himself as the candidate most equipped to end Washington gridlock. It was a positive message, underscored by the word "hope,'' a word that carried an almost talismanic quality in the Obama campaign.
"I've noticed that some of the other candidates are almost scornful of the word, the implication being that if you're hopeful you must be naïve,'' Mr. Obama said. "That's not what hope is. Hope is not ignoring the challenges ahead. Hope is working for and fighting for what seemed impossible before."
Mr. Obama also clearly benefited from a scattering of Republicans who caucused for him, drawn to his relatively moderate stances on foreign affairs, his vow to push through health-care reform and the fact that he wasn't Hillary Clinton. Those included Republicans such as Robb Spearman, a Des Moines real-estate broker, who said even Mr. Obama's drug use didn't faze him. "He's 46 years old,'' Mr. Spearman said. "Who at that age hasn't done something like that in his past?''
Though an uneven public speaker, Mr. Obama seemed to get his rhetorical sea legs in the final sprint, even as his speeches grew exponentially in length. In the last few days, he spoke for more than an hour at each of his events. Often quick with a quip, the man who described himself as "a skinny guy with a funny name" maintained a self-deprecating style that clearly delighted many of his supporters.
Though the length of Mr. Obama's speeches sent eyes rolling among reporters and even some of his staff, many in the crowd didn't seem to care. "I can't believe he can talk so long -- but he does have a lot to say,'' said Sharon Danielson, a committed Obama voter who saw him a day before the caucuses. "He's so spellbinding. And it's so hopeful that you want to believe.''
Mr. Obama also benefited by running against Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, who were perceived by many voters to be battlers. Though the race in Iowa witnessed all three candidates trading shots at each other, Mr. Obama chose his fighting words well, making sure not to damage his reputation as a conciliator, even as he often had to defend himself. "Barack can fight but he just wants to do it more harmoniously,'' said Stephanie Schwortz, of Fairfield, who saw Mr. Obama the day before in Cedar Rapids. Ms. Schwortz said she began the campaign season assuming she would vote for Mrs. Clinton. "But I think people want someone who's genuine,'' she said.
-- Christopher Cooper
* * *
HILLARY CLINTON GOT HER TOUGHEST QUESTION OF THE DAY from a teenage boy on the last stop of a long day last month.
"A lot of people for some reason just don't like you," he said, standing in front of a packed audience of 400 people in Coralville. He asked the New York senator how she thought she could get over this in a general election, and added one restriction: "without saying they should get to know you, because I think they know you."
Rather than laughing off the question and turning on the charm, Mrs. Clinton responded defensively. "No they don't [know me], but that's okay, they don't want to know me."
Mrs. Clinton's quest for likeability has been a campaign theme from the get-go. Some voters in Iowa and elsewhere say the senator, heavy on policy and credentials, can come off as cold. It's this perception that contributed to her loss tonight to the charismatic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
The well-oiled Clinton campaign tried its hardest to turn this image around, launching a new ad campaign called "The Hillary I Know," in which long-term friends and constituents tell personal stories about how the New York Senator touched their lives. Other efforts included bussing over 20 of Mrs. Clinton's childhood friends around the state to go door-to-door talking about their friend. Mrs. Clinton's daughter, Chelsea had her friends who have known the Clinton family for years, also campaign here on her mother's behalf.
But the efforts fell flat and ultimately some voters were still left with a cold impression of the candidate. As Rob Moyers stood in line to caucus at the Lovejoy Elementary School here, Ms. Clinton came through to greet voters. After she shook hands with Mr. Moyers he said, "I looked into Obama's eyes and he seemed sincere. Now, that looked mechanical. She's like a robot."
Jennifer Leslie, 34 and a John Edwards supporter in Knoxville, says she agrees with most of Mrs. Clinton's policies on education and health care but doesn't think she could win a general election.
Nevertheless, the mood was upbeat and hopeful at the Clinton rally tonight at the Hotel Fort Des Moines, where supporters packed a tight ballroom and waved Clinton signs with her "Ready for Change" slogan.
"We're gong to take this enthusiasm and go straight to New Hampshire," Mrs. Clinton said, feeding on the crowd's energy. She congratulated Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards and said she is "both confident and optimistic, both about the campaign but more so about our country."
Campaign staff knew Iowa would be a hard state to win since Bill Clinton never campaigned here and the state borders Illinois, Mr. Obama's home state. Early on campaign advisors told Mrs. Clinton to skip Iowa all together.
Noah Mamet, 38 and the owner of a consulting company in Los Angeles, has been going door-to-door in the freezing Iowa winter trying to drum up support for Mrs. Clinton. He was unfazed by the results tonight. "It's not fatal," Mr. Mamet says, "We'll battle it out another day."
-Amy Chozick
John McCain's worldview
In the first of a series of posts, BritainAndAmerica will be summarising the key foreign policy recommendations of the leading candidates to be America's 44th President. The posts are summaries of essays that the candidates have written for Foreign Affairs. We begin with Senator John McCain's contribution: An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom. Tomorrow we will preview Senator Barack Obama's worldview.
America must prevail in Iraq despite the errors of the pre-surge years: "Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership. The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price. Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success."
>> Video: McCain and Obama offer very differing views on the surge in Iraq, CNN
>> MoveOn.org's attack on McCain ad for his support of the surge
More must be done to address the Talibanisation of Pakistan: "We must continue to work with President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and al Qaeda maintain in his country. These groups still have sanctuaries there, and the "Talibanization" of Pakistani society is advancing. The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country. This would mean enhancing Pakistan's ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist madrasahs and supporting Pakistani moderates."
We must act outside of the UN if necessary to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power: "Iran, the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism, continues its deadly quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy, including the United States and Israel, or even to pass nuclear materials to one of its allied terrorist networks. The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions. If the United Nations is unwilling to act, the United States must lead a group of like-minded countries to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as restrictions on exports of refined gasoline, outside the UN framework. America and its partners should also privatize the sanctions effort by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize the regime in Tehran, whose policies are already opposed by many Iranian citizens. And military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world."
America must remain a staunch ally of Israel: "The next U.S. president must continue America's long-standing support for Israel, including by providing needed military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. The long-elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians must remain a priority. But the goal must be genuine peace, and so Hamas must be isolated even as the United States intensifies its commitment to finding an enduring settlement."
America must befriend and reward moderate Islamic states: "As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart. My administration, with its partners, will help friendly Muslim states establish the building blocks of open and tolerant societies. And we will nurture a culture of hope and economic opportunity by establishing a free-trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan, open to all who do not sponsor terrorism."
US armed forces need to be larger and better equipped for today's challenges: "Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops... America needs not simply more soldiers but more soldiers with the skills necessary to help friendly governments and their security forces resist common foes. I will create an Army Advisory Corps with 20,000 soldiers to partner with militaries abroad, and I will increase the number of U.S. personnel available to engage in Special Forces operations, civil affairs activities, military policing, and military intelligence. We also need a nonmilitary deployable police force to train foreign forces and help maintain law and order in places threatened by state collapse. Today, understanding foreign cultures is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. As president, I will launch a crash program in civilian and military schools to prepare more experts in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Pashto. Students at our service academies should be required to study abroad."
We must equip our armed forces to interrogate without abusing detainees: "I will enlarge the military's Foreign Area Officer program and create a new specialty in strategic interrogation in order to produce more interrogators who can obtain critical knowledge from detainees by using advanced psychological techniques, rather than the kind of abusive tactics properly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions."
>> Video: McCain clashes with Romney after the latter defends waterboarding
Today's challenges need a League of Democracies to address challenges that the UN will not: "NATO has begun to fill this gap by promoting partnerships between the alliance and great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further by linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies. This would be unlike Woodrow Wilson's doomed plan for the universal-membership League of Nations. Instead, it would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together for peace and liberty. The organization could act when the UN fails -- to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems. This League of Democracies would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action... If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world's democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision -- just as America led in creating NATO six decades ago."
>> More on McCain's idea of a League of Democracies.
Putin's revanchist Russia should be excluded from the G8: "We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible actor, internationally and domestically."
Japan, Australia and South Korea should be central to Pacific region policy: "I welcome Japan's international leadership and emergence as a global power, encourage its admirable "values-based diplomacy," and support its bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. As president, I will tend carefully to our ever-stronger alliance with Australia, whose troops are fighting shoulder to shoulder with ours in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will seek to rebuild our frayed partnership with South Korea by emphasizing economic and security cooperation and will cement our growing partnership with India."
Standing up to China: "When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts. When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note. When China enjoys close economic and diplomatic relations with pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, tension will result. When China proposes regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia, the United States will react. China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests. U.S.-Chinese relations can benefit both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values."
The tragedy in Darfur must be stopped by whatever means: "Africa continues to offer the most compelling case for humanitarian intervention. With respect to the Darfur region of Sudan, I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda. In Bosnia, we acted late but eventually saved countless lives. In Rwanda, we stood by and watched the slaughter and later pledged that we would not do so again. The genocide in Darfur demands U.S. leadership. My administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction that have unfolded there."
America must reduce energy dependence and become a global leader in protecting the environment: "My national energy strategy will amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics. This strategy will include employing technology to achieve new efficiencies in energy extraction and consumption, enforcing conservation, creating market incentives to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy and hybrid vehicles, and expanding sources of renewable energy. I will also greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source. Given the proper incentives, our innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs, and workers have the capability to lead the world in achieving energy security; given the stakes, they must. I have proposed a bipartisan plan in the U.S. Senate to address the problem of climate change and ensure a sustainable future for humankind. My market-based approach will set reasonable caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, provide industries with tradable emissions credits, and create other incentives for the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies. It is time for America to lead the world in protecting the environment for future generations."
>> Video: McCain tells the 2006 Tory Conference that global warming is real
Barack Obama's worldview
Yesterday, in the first of a series examining the foreign policy priorities of the main presidential candidates, we spotlighted John McCain. Today it's Senator Barack Obama's turn. Tomorrow Senator Hillary Clinton. All of the posts are largely based on the candidates' contributions to Foreign Affairs magazine. Senator Obama's full essay - Renewing American Leadership - can be read there.
There can be no understating of today's dangers: "This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts."
Only a phased withdrawal will force the political solution that Iraq needs: "we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country."
>> Video: Unlike other Democrat hopefuls Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning but makes it clear that he's a hawk on terror generally and supported the Afghan campaign
>> Video: Obama and McCain differ on Iraq strategy
America must boldly lead a Middle East Peace Process: "For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region -- a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States. That is a commitment I will make."
A radical Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons: "The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel."
>> Video: Democrat presidential candidates discuss Iran
America needs a bigger, more expert military: "We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills."
We must engage with Russia on nuclear proliferation: "Although we must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability in Russia, we must work with the country in areas of common interest -- above all, in making sure that nuclear weapons and material are secure. We must also work with Russia to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons. America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads. And we should take advantage of recent technological advances to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. All of this can be done while maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent. These steps will ultimately strengthen, not weaken, our security."
Pakistan must do more to combat the Taliban: "I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban. Although vigorous action in South Asia and Central Asia should be a starting point, our efforts must be broader. There must be no safe haven for those who plot to kill Americans. To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."
>> The Wall Street Journal dubbed Senator Obama a "neocon" after remarks on Pakistan
>> Obama's 'get tough with Pakistan' remarks look set to backfire
America must rededicate itself to the United Nations' mission: "The UN Secretariat's management practices remain weak. Peacekeeping operations are overextended. The new UN Human Rights Council has passed eight resolutions condemning Israel -- but not a single resolution condemning the genocide in Darfur or human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Yet none of these problems will be solved unless America rededicates itself to the organization and its mission."
America must lead in combating climate change: "Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world, including much of the eastern seaboard. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world. As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip -- by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. And I will work to finally free America of its dependence on foreign oil -- by using energy more efficiently in our cars, factories, and homes, relying more on renewable sources of electricity, and harnessing the potential of biofuels."
Aid spending must be doubled: "As president, I will double our annual investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed toward worthwhile goals. For the last 20 years, U.S. foreign assistance funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. It is in our national security interest to do better. But if America is going to help others build more just and secure societies, our trade deals, debt relief, and foreign aid must not come as blank checks. I will couple our support with an insistent call for reform, to combat the corruption that rots societies and governments from within. I will do so not in the spirit of a patron but in the spirit of a partner -- a partner mindful of his own imperfections."
>> Video of Barack Obama setting out his overall foreign policy goals: 'I reject the notion that America's time has passed'
December 30, 2007 at 08:25 AM in Barack Obama , Presidential candidate worldviews | Permalink
Hillary Clinton's worldview
This is the third in a series of reviews of the worldviews of leading candidates for the White House as set out in the journal Foreign Affairs. John McCain and Barack Obama have already been featured. Tomorrow our attention turns to Mitt Romney. Today we look at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy priorities: Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century.
America must end the unilateralism of the Bush years: "We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries. But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing... U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy."
>> Bill Clinton emphasises George W Bush's alleged unilateralism in a soft BBC interview
Democracy promotion should still be a policy goal: "Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day. These people risk becoming a vast permanent underclass. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives. The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has temporarily given democracy a bad name, but over the long term the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world."
Regional diplomatic efforts should replace the US military in Iraq: "Ending the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States' global leadership. The war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people. The war in Iraq has also stretched our military to the breaking point. We must rebuild our armed services and restore them body and soul... As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war."
>> Video: Hillary Clinton proposes a bill of rights for US servicemen
Specialised military units will target terrorist threats that emerge in Iraq: "I will order specialized units to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorist organizations in the region. These units will also provide security for U.S. troops and personnel in Iraq and train and equip Iraqi security services to keep order and promote stability in the country, but only to the extent that such training is actually working. I will also consider leaving some forces in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq in order to protect the fragile but real democracy and relative peace and security that have developed there, but with the clear understanding that the terrorist organization the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) must be dealt with and the Turkish border must be respected."
>> Video: Hillary sets out her own position on Iraq and plans to make the surge illegal
>> Video: Giuliani ad targets Hillary's alleged change of mind on Iraq war
Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror: "The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President Hamid Karzai's government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas, especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society."
All options must be on the table in order to prevent a nuclear Iran: "Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table. On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option."
The US and Russia must significantly reduce nuclear arsenals: "I will seek to negotiate an accord that substantially and verifiably reduces the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. This dramatic initiative would send a strong message of nuclear restraint to the world, while we retain enough strength to deter others from trying to match our arsenal. I will also seek Senate approval of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 2009, the tenth anniversary of the Senate's initial rejection of the agreement. This would enhance the United States' credibility when demanding that other nations refrain from testing. As president, I will support efforts to supplement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Establishing an international fuel bank that guaranteed secure access to nuclear fuel at reasonable prices would help limit the number of countries that pose proliferation risks."
China is America's most important relationship: "Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together. China's support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea's nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to establish a Northeast Asian security regime."
America must not be afraid to talk about its recent mistakes: "To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face. We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region. We will have to talk about Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib."
We must build goodwill in the world by fighting poverty: "The fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other dreaded diseases is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity. These diseases have created a generation of orphans and set back economic and political progress by decades in many countries."
America will become a leader on climate change and gain economically as a result: "We must also take threats and turn them into opportunities. The seemingly overwhelming challenge of climate change is a prime example. Far from being a drag on global growth, climate control represents a powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century. As president, I will make the fight against global warming a priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the world cannot solve it without us. The United States must reengage in international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership needed to reach a binding global climate agreement. But we must first restore our own credibility on the issue. Rapidly emerging countries, such as China, will not curb their own carbon emissions until the United States has demonstrated a serious commitment to reducing its own through a market-based cap-and-trade approach."
>> Video: Hillary Clinton pays tribute to Al Gore as she warns that tackling global warming is a moral challenge and she is optimistic that the world can embrace a clean energy future
Too many human rights have been compromised during the Bush years: "The world we want is also a world where human rights are respected. By surrendering our values in the name of our safety, the Bush administration has left Americans wondering whether its rhetoric about freedom around the world still applies back home. We have undercut international support for fighting terrorism by suggesting that the job cannot be done without humiliation, infringements on basic rights to privacy and free speech, and even torture. We must once again make human rights a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy and a core element of our conception of democracy."
More must be done to promote women's rights in US foreign policy: "U.S. leadership, including a commitment to incorporate the promotion of women's rights in our bilateral relationships and international aid programs, is essential not just to improving the lives of women but to strengthening the families, communities, and societies in which they live."
>> Related link: Is Hillary a moderate hawk?
December 31, 2007 at 12:08 AM in Hillary Clinton, Presidential candidate worldviews | Permalink
1st January 2008 »
Mitt Romney's worldview
This is the fourth in a series of summaries of the foreign policy priorities of the principal contenders to be President of the United States. Today we examine the highlights of Mitt Romney's article for Foreign Affairs: Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges. Tomorrow we examine Rudy Giuliani's worldview.
The international environment is difficult but America has been more than equal to greater challenges in the past: "Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel, the world largely stands silent, unable to agree on effective sanctions even as each day the danger grows. Genocide ravages Darfur even as the world stands frozen. In Latin America, leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez seek to reverse the spread of freedom and return to failed authoritarian policies. AIDS and potential new pandemics threaten us in an interconnected world. The economic rise of China and other countries across Asia poses a different type of challenge. It is easy to understand why Americans -- and many others around the world -- feel so much unease and uncertainty. Yet although we face fundamentally different issues today, the United States has a history of rising to meet even greater challenges."
Petraeus deserves the chance to succeed: "Walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances. There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed."
>> Governor Romney's Foreign Affairs essay was written before Petraeus gave his first report to Congress on the early signs of his mission's success.
>> Video: Romney discusses the consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq
Too little has changed in US foreign policy following 9/11: "The jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation and is symptomatic of a range of new global realities. It is common to the point of cliché to talk about how much the world has changed since 9/11. Our president led a dramatic response to the events of that day and has taken action to protect the U.S. homeland. Yet if one looks at our tools of national power, what is surprising is not how much has changed since then but how little. While we wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. troop levels and our investment in the military as a percentage of GDP remain lower than at any time of major conflict since World War II. Decades after the oil shocks of the 1970s highlighted the United States' vulnerability, we remain dangerously dependent on foreign oil. Many of our instruments of national security were created not only before most Americans had access to the Internet and cell phones but also before they had televisions. Our difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with disturbing gaps in our intelligence, are well known. A growing number of experts question whether we have the capabilities to meet various transnational challenges, ranging from pandemic diseases to international terrorism. And while the United Nations has stood impotent in the face of genocide in Sudan and has been unable to address Iran's rush to build dangerous nuclear capabilities, we have done little more than tweak international alliances and antiquated institutions."
America must spend at least 4% of its national income on defence: "The next president should commit to spending a minimum of four percent of GDP on national defense. Increased spending should not mean increased waste, however. A team of private-sector leaders and defense experts should carry out a stem-to-stern analysis of military purchasing. Accounts need to be thoroughly scrutinized to eliminate excessive contractor and supplier charges and prevent deals for equipment and programs that do more for politicians' popularity in their home districts than for the nation's protection. Congress needs to set stricter lobbying rules and keep a far more watchful eye on self-serving politicians, current and past, in regard to these matters. The United States' strength goes beyond its military capacity. Indeed, a nation cannot remain a military superpower if it has a second-tier economy. The weakness of the Soviet economy was a vulnerability that President Reagan exploited. Our ability to influence the world also vitally depends on our ability to maintain our economic lead through policies such as smaller government, lower taxes, better schools and health care, greater investment in technology, and the promotion of free trade, while maintaining the strength of America's families, values, and moral leadership."
The technological revolution to deliver energy independence will be our equivalent of the Manhattan Project: "Our military and economic strength depend on our becoming energy independent -- moving past symbolic measures to actually produce as much energy as we use. This could take 20 years or more; and, of course, we would continue to purchase fuel after that time. Yet we would end our strategic vulnerability to oil shutoffs by nations such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela and stop sending almost $1 billion a day to other oil-producing nations, some of which use the money against us. At the same time, we may well be able to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions... We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative -- an energy revolution -- that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy. Moreover, even as scientists still debate how much human activity impacts the environment, we can all agree that alternative energy sources will be good for the planet. For any and all of these reasons, the time for energy independence has come."
>> Video: Fuel efficiency standards should be central to America's energy policy
Alongside pushing for UN reform we must seek alternatives to it: "Clearly, the United Nations has not been able to fulfill its founding purpose of providing collective security against aggression and genocide. Thus, we need to continue to push for reform of the organization. Yet where institutions are fundamentally incapable of meeting a new generation of challenges, the United States does not have to go it alone. Instead, we must examine where existing alliances can be strengthened and reinvigorated and where new alliances need to be forged. I agree with former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar that we should build on the NATO alliance to defeat radical Islam. We need to work with our allies to pursue Aznar's call for greater coordination in military, homeland security, and nonproliferation efforts."
A summit to marshall support for moderate Islamic states: "I envision that the summit would lead to the creation of a Partnership for Prosperity and Progress: a coalition of states that would assemble resources from developed nations and use them to support public schools (not Wahhabi madrasahs), microcredit and banking, the rule of law, human rights, basic health care, and free-market policies in modernizing Islamic states. These resources would be drawn from public and private institutions and from volunteers and nongovernmental organizations."
January 01, 2008 at 12:01 AM in Mitt Romney, Presidential candidate worldviews | Permalink
January 2008 »
Rudy Giuliani's worldview
In the fifth summary of leading presidential candidates' foreign policy priorities, we look at the main themes of Rudy Giuliani's September 2007 article for Foreign Affairs: Toward a Realistic Peace. Scroll down this link to see those contenders already profiled. Tomorrow we'll look at John Edwards' worldview.
We are only in the early stages of 'the terrorists' war on us' that began on 9/11: "The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy. America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a decadelong -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come. But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to meet new challenges."
Defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan would embolden the enemies of civilisation: "We cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one -- larger, richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today. The balance of power in the Middle East would tip further toward terror, extremism, and repression. America's influence and prestige -- not just in the Middle East but around the world -- would be dealt a shattering blow. Our allies would conclude that we cannot back up our commitments with sustained action. Our enemies -- both terrorists and rogue states -- would be emboldened. They would see further opportunities to weaken the international state system that is the primary defense of civilization. Much as our enemies in the 1990s concluded from our inconsistent response to terrorism then, our enemies today would conclude that America's will is weak and the civilization we pledged to defend is tired. Failure would be an invitation for more war, in even more difficult and dangerous circumstances."
>> Video: Giuliani attacks Hillary Clinton's policy on Iraq
America needs a much bigger military: "The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. It may need more, but this is an appropriate baseline increase while we reevaluate our strategies and resources. We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling tankers. Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs."
Missile defence plans must be accelerated: "The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as "mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world's most dangerous states. President George W. Bush deserves credit for changing America's course on this issue. But progress needs to be accelerated."
Iran must be confronted: "The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted."
Reform of the State Department is essential: "Another step in rebuilding a strong diplomacy will be to make changes in the State Department and the Foreign Service. The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing its organizational chart -- although simplification is needed -- but of changing the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end."
Giuliani is only leading candidate to note special relationship with Britain: "We should continue to fully engage with Europe, both in its collective capacity as the European Union and through our special relationship with the United Kingdom and our traditional diplomatic relations with France, Germany, Italy, and other western European nations. We highly value our ties with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan nations. Their experience of oppression under communism has made them steadfast allies and strong advocates of economic freedom."
>> Video: Mayor Giuliani gives Atlantic Bridge's Inaugural Margaret Thatcher Lecture
>> Three former Thatcher advisors join 'Team Rudy'
Good relations with Russia and China should not be unconditional: "U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today."
Trade, more than aid, will bring hope to Africa: "More people in the United States need to understand how helping Africa today will help increase peace and decency throughout the world tomorrow. The next president should continue the Bush administration's effort to help Africa overcome AIDS and malaria. The international community must also learn from the mistakes that allowed the genocide in Darfur to begin and have prevented the relevant international organizations from ending it. The world's commitment to end genocide has been sidestepped again and again. Ultimately, the most important thing we can do to help Africa is to increase trade with the continent. U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty."
"Other tools" might be necessary if the UN does not reform: "The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt... Despite the UN's flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever and must be prepared to look to other tools."
America must not foster the creation of a Palestinian state that is hostile to Israel: "Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."
January 02, 2008 at 12:49 AM in Presidential candidate worldviews, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink
John Edwards' worldview
John Edwards' essay for Foreign Affairs - Reengaging with the World - is the sixth in BritainAndAmerica's series of summaries of the worldviews of leading presidential candidates.
The Iraq war was one of the greatest strategic failures in US history: "We must move beyond the wreckage created by one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq. Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement."
America must reverse its low standing in the world: "A recent Pew survey showed the United States' approval ratings plummeting throughout the world between 2000 and 2006. This decline was especially worrisome in Muslim countries of strategic importance to the United States, such as Indonesia, where approval dropped from 75 percent to 30 percent, and Turkey, where it fell from 52 percent to 12 percent. Perceptions of America's efforts to promote democracy have suffered as well. In 33 of the 47 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, majorities or pluralities expressed dislike for American ideas of democracy. We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations... There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, "the leader of the free world." Men and women in Nazi-occupied Europe would huddle around shortwave radios to listen to President Franklin Roosevelt. Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust. Today, under the current administration, this is no longer the case. At the dawn of a new century, it is vital that we win the war of ideas in the world."
We should stop using the 'war on terror' expression: "From Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, the "war on terror" has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted. Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists' arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone. For these reasons, many generals and national security experts have criticized the president's "war on terror" approach. Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni has said that the "war on terror" is a counterproductive doctrine. So has the government of one of our closest allies; the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has distanced himself from the term. Admiral William Fallon -- President George W. Bush's new chief of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) -- has instructed his staff to stop saying that we are in a "long war." These leaders know that we need substance, not slogans."
All combat troops must be withdrawn from Iraq: "Iraq's problems are deep and dangerous, but they cannot be solved by the U.S. military. For over a year, I have argued for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops. Once we are out of Iraq, the United States must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, a regional spillover of the civil war, or the establishment of an al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain quick-reaction forces in Kuwait and a significant naval presence in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some security capabilities in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the U.S. embassy and U.S. personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe -- in working to secure Iraq's future. All of these measures will finally allow us to close this terrible chapter and move on to the broader challenges of the new century."
America must provide moral leadership on Darfur: "NATO must establish a no-fly zone over the region to cut off supplies to the brutal Janjaweed militias and end the Sudanese government's bombing of civilians in Darfur. NATO member states should also impose a new round of multilateral sanctions on the Sudanese government and freeze the foreign assets of individuals complicit in the genocide. The United States must make a decisive new commitment to employ the extraordinary assets of the U.S. military -- our airlift capabilities, logistical support, and intelligence systems -- to assist UN and African Union peacekeeping efforts in Darfur. And we must continue to pressure other countries with influence in the region, such as China, to meet their own responsibilities to help end this conflict."
America should negotiate directly with Iran to stop it becoming a nuclear power: "Every major U.S. ally agrees that the advent of a nuclear Iran would be a threat to global security. We should continue to work with other great powers to offer Tehran economic incentives for good behavior. At the same time, we must use much more serious economic sanctions to deter Ahmadinejad's government when it refuses to cooperate. To do this, we will have to deal with Iran directly. Such diplomacy is not a gift, nor is it a concession. The current administration recently managed to have one single-issue meeting with Iran to discuss Iraq. It simply makes no sense for the administration to engage Iran on this subject alone and avoid one as consequential as nuclear proliferation."
China, Russia and India: "The U.S.-Chinese relationship is a delicate one, which has not been well managed by the current administration. In the coming years, China's influence and importance will only continue to grow. On issues such as trade, climate change, and human rights, our overarching goal must be to get China to commit to the rules that govern the conduct of nations... Our most important goal is to draw Russia into the Western political mainstream through continued engagement and, when necessary, diplomatic and economic pressure... I have seen for myself that India is one of the world's richest treasures. With its great history, tremendous people, and rich culture, India has truly overwhelming potential. The United States is fortunate to count India as a partner, and we must cultivate our friendship to advance our common values. India is a country that knows both the positive and the negative aspects of our globalized world. It has achieved remarkable economic growth, benefiting from access to technology and information. Yet the nation also grapples with threats that refuse to respect borders -- the AIDS pandemic, extreme poverty, and terrorists, such as those who struck New Delhi late in 2005. The United States and India are natural allies, and the U.S.-Indian strategic partnership will help shape the twenty-first century. We must therefore strengthen our relationship using both national and international tools: reforming the UN so that there is a place for India on the Security Council and working with India to help it achieve a credible and transparent plan to permanently separate its civilian and military nuclear programs."
No commitment on defence expenditure but a rebalancing of capabilities and missions must occur: "Some have fallen right in line behind President Bush's recent proposal to add 92,000 troops between now and 2012, giving little rationale for exactly why we need this many men and women, particularly with a likely withdrawal from Iraq. But the problem of our force structure is not best dealt with by a numbers game. We must be more thoughtful about what the troops would actually be used for. Any troops we add now would take a number of years to recruit and train, and they would therefore not help us today in Iraq. As president, I will rebalance our forces to ensure that the size and capabilities of our military match its missions."
More emphasis on international development: "As president, I will create a new cabinet-level position to coordinate global development policies across the government. I will also replace Kennedy's Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 with a Global Development Act to modernize and consolidate development assistance, and I will ask Congress to improve its oversight and revamp its committee structure so that it can be a more effective partner in this effort. With measures like these, we can reclaim our historic role as a moral leader of the world while at the same time making the world safer and more secure for the United States."
January 03, 2008 at 10:08 AM in John Edwards, Presidential candidate worldviews | Permalink
Post a Comment