Having a Democrat President may not do much for key foreign policy issues
Recently, when VP Cheney was asked by ABC News correspondent
Martha Raddatz about polls showing that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose the war in Iraq, he replied, “So?” “So – you don’t care what the American people think?” Raddatz asked. “No,” Cheney replied, and explained, “I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in public opinion polls.” Later, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, explaining Cheney’s comments, was asked whether the public should have “input.” Her reply: “You had your input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.” That’s correct. Every four years, the Americans can choose between candidates whose views they reject, and then they should shut up.
With its unbounded disregard for public opinion, the Bush administration has been far to the radical nationalist and adventurist extreme of the policy spectrum, and was subjected to unprecedented mainstream criticism for that reason. A Democratic candidate is likely to shift more toward the centrist norm. However, the spectrum is narrow. Looking at the records and statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is hard to see much reason to expect significant changes in policy.
It is important to bear in mind that neither Democratic candidate has expressed a principled objection to the invasion of Iraq. By that I mean the kind of objection that was universally expressed when the Russians invaded Afghanistan or when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait: condemnation on the grounds that aggression is a crime – in fact the “supreme international crime,” as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined. No one criticized those invasions merely as a “strategic blunder” or as involvement in “another country’s civil war, a war (they) can’t win” (Obama, Clinton, respectively, on the Iraq invasion). The criticism of the Iraq war is on grounds of cost and failure; what are called “pragmatic reasons,” considered hardheaded, serious, moderate – in the case of Western crimes.
In brief, the Republican proposal is that Iraq is to remain a client state, agreeing to allow permanent US military installations and ensuring US investors priority in accessing its huge oil resources – a reasonably clear statement of goals of the invasion.
What are the alternatives of the Democrats? Gen. Kevin Ryan (retd.), senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center of International Affairs, analysed their proposals for The Boston Globe. The proposals permit the President to waive their restrictions in the interests of “national security,” which leaves the door wide open, Ryan writes. They permit troops to remain in Iraq “as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting US facilities, citizens or forces; combating al-Qaida or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces.”
With regard to Iran, Obama is considered more moderate than Clinton, and his leading slogan is “change.” So let us keep to him. Obama calls for more willingness to negotiate with Iran, but within the standard constraints. His reported position is that he “would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek ‘regime change’ if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues,” and stopped “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. Like all other viable candidates, Obama has insisted throughout the electoral campaign that the US must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is: “keep all options open”), a violation of the UN Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of Americans have disagreed: 75% favor building better relations with Iran...”, according to PIPA.
Circumstances may change, and perhaps the candidates with them, to the benefit of US and the region. Public opinion may not remain easily ignored. The concentrations of domestic economic power that largely shapes policy may come to recognize that their interests are better served by joining the general public, and the rest of the world, than by accepting Washington’s hard line.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Recently, when VP Cheney was asked by ABC News correspondent
Martha Raddatz about polls showing that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose the war in Iraq, he replied, “So?” “So – you don’t care what the American people think?” Raddatz asked. “No,” Cheney replied, and explained, “I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in public opinion polls.” Later, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, explaining Cheney’s comments, was asked whether the public should have “input.” Her reply: “You had your input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.” That’s correct. Every four years, the Americans can choose between candidates whose views they reject, and then they should shut up.With its unbounded disregard for public opinion, the Bush administration has been far to the radical nationalist and adventurist extreme of the policy spectrum, and was subjected to unprecedented mainstream criticism for that reason. A Democratic candidate is likely to shift more toward the centrist norm. However, the spectrum is narrow. Looking at the records and statements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is hard to see much reason to expect significant changes in policy.
It is important to bear in mind that neither Democratic candidate has expressed a principled objection to the invasion of Iraq. By that I mean the kind of objection that was universally expressed when the Russians invaded Afghanistan or when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait: condemnation on the grounds that aggression is a crime – in fact the “supreme international crime,” as the Nuremberg Tribunal determined. No one criticized those invasions merely as a “strategic blunder” or as involvement in “another country’s civil war, a war (they) can’t win” (Obama, Clinton, respectively, on the Iraq invasion). The criticism of the Iraq war is on grounds of cost and failure; what are called “pragmatic reasons,” considered hardheaded, serious, moderate – in the case of Western crimes.
In brief, the Republican proposal is that Iraq is to remain a client state, agreeing to allow permanent US military installations and ensuring US investors priority in accessing its huge oil resources – a reasonably clear statement of goals of the invasion.
What are the alternatives of the Democrats? Gen. Kevin Ryan (retd.), senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center of International Affairs, analysed their proposals for The Boston Globe. The proposals permit the President to waive their restrictions in the interests of “national security,” which leaves the door wide open, Ryan writes. They permit troops to remain in Iraq “as long as they are performing one of three specific missions: protecting US facilities, citizens or forces; combating al-Qaida or international terrorists; and training Iraqi security forces.”
With regard to Iran, Obama is considered more moderate than Clinton, and his leading slogan is “change.” So let us keep to him. Obama calls for more willingness to negotiate with Iran, but within the standard constraints. His reported position is that he “would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek ‘regime change’ if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues,” and stopped “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. Like all other viable candidates, Obama has insisted throughout the electoral campaign that the US must threaten Iran with attack (the standard phrase is: “keep all options open”), a violation of the UN Charter, if anyone cares. But a large majority of Americans have disagreed: 75% favor building better relations with Iran...”, according to PIPA.
Circumstances may change, and perhaps the candidates with them, to the benefit of US and the region. Public opinion may not remain easily ignored. The concentrations of domestic economic power that largely shapes policy may come to recognize that their interests are better served by joining the general public, and the rest of the world, than by accepting Washington’s hard line.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
Read these article :-
ZEE BUSINESS BEST B SCHOOL SURVEY
B-schooled in India, Placed Abroad (Print Version)
IIPM in Financial times (Print Version)
IIPM makes business education truly global (Print Version)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM)
IIPM Campus
Top Articles on IIPM:-
'This is one of Big B's best performances'
IIPM to come up at Rajarhat
IIPM awards four Bengali novelists
IIPM makes business education truly global-Education-The Times of ...
The Hindu : Education Plus : Honour for IIPM
IIPM ranked No.1 B-School in India, Management News - By ...
IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
Moneycontrol >> News >> Press- News >> IIPM ranked No1 B-School in ...
IIPM ranked No. 1 B-school in India- Zee Business Survey ...
IIPM ranked No1 B-School in India :: Education, Careers ...
The Hindu Business Line : IIPM placements hit a high of over 2000 jobs
Deccan Herald - IIPM ranked as top B-School in India
India eNews - IIPM Ranked No1 B-School in India
IIPM Delhi - Indian Institute of Planning and Management New Delhi ...
domain-b.com : IIPM ranked ahead of IIMs
No comments:
Post a Comment