There is little doubt that America’s foreign policy right now is not in as orderly a condition as it should be. You hear it from all nine of the Democratic hopefuls, who to varying degrees take issue with the Bush administration’s execution of the war on terror. If you believe what most of these Democrats say, this disorder results directly from the administration’s bungling of post-war operations and what John Kerry calls American “triumphalism.”
Howard Dean calls it “reckless and just plain wrong.” John Edwards deems it “wrong-minded.” Indeed, each candidate seems to have his or her own variation of articulating displeasure with American foreign policy. You would think, then, that candidates who issue such strong assertions would offer clear, logical and feasible alternatives to the status quo. Judging from the empty rhetoric and absurd proposals offered by the candidates thus far, you would be wrong.
Among the major contenders (Dean, Kerry and Gephardt), perhaps John Kerry’s vision illustrates this best. Kerry betrayed his naíve outlook on American foreign policy when he remarked: “The administration has abandoned the fundamental tenets that guided our foreign policy for more than half a century — belief in collective security and alliances, respect for international institutions and international law, multilateral engagement and the use of force not as a first resort, but as a last resort.”
The “belief” in global alliances that he speaks of has guided U.S. foreign policy only when it has been in America’s interest. Such alliances guided American policy in WWII and Kosovo, but they certainly did not in Vietnam, in Reagan’s Libya air strikes or in Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan following the embassy attacks of 1998.
In short, America, like all nations, relies on alliances and international institutions only when doing so serves its interests. The United Nations and other, regional alliances are mere facilitators for countries to pursue their own ends. To fault George Bush and his administration for foregoing this charade is foolish.
So what about the other Democrats who boast a panacea for America’s challenges abroad? Frontrunner Howard Dean professes to desire a foreign policy that “reflects American values.” Would “American values” include asking the United Nations, that body that was so enthusiastic about the Iraq war, to assume civilian authority in that country? According to Dean’s campaign website, it would.
And what of his proposal for NATO to lead the peacekeeping? NATO member France has made it abundantly clear that it will take no part in reconstruction, while NATO member Germany will only involve itself under UN auspices. Clearly, Dean’s vision of post-war Iraq is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
This naíveté is not unique to Howard Dean. Almost all of the Democratic hopefuls call for allowing our allies greater participation in the Iraqi reconstruction. These are the same allies who, excepting Great Britain, Italy and Spain, fought tooth-and-nail to prevent the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq. Do the Democrats honestly expect these countries to jump at the opportunity to help secure the peace of a war they opposed?
As for themselves, how do Democrats like Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman — who supported the unilateral war — explain their opposition to a unilateral peace?
One hallucination common to all of the Democratic contenders is the belief that their presidency would magically heal the rift between the United States and Europe. To believe that the mere election of a Democrat would effect such profound change is delusional.
Europe’s quibble with America derives mostly from its disdain for George W. Bush and unilateralism, but it also extends far deeper than this. Europe is uncomfortable with American hegemony in general. This will not change with the advent of a new administration.
Simply put, the Democratic hopefuls seem to lack a realistic understanding of foreign affairs, bringing only tired rhetoric and idealistic blather to the table. They criticize the practice of President Bush’s policies, only to offer alternatives that do not even work on paper.
Undoubtedly, these candidates reserve the right to critique the administration, but as of now, the most “wrong-minded” and “plain wrong” proposals are their own.
Frank Hennick ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.