July 29, 2004 -- Carter: Policies echoed in Dem platform.
EVER since Sen. John Kerry emerged as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Republicans have accused him of hoping to restore the Clinton foreign policy. But the Democratic Party's platform, "Strong At Home, Respected In The World," envisages a Kerry presidency whose foreign policy would more resemble Jimmy Carter's.
Nearly half the document, approved at the convention, is devoted to foreign policy, twice that of its predecessor in 2000. It is mainly designed to persuade voters that Kerry would be at least as tough as President Bush on national security and the War on Terror. Nevertheless, it offers some insight into a Kerry foreign policy.
The focus is on the Middle East and the related issues of oil and terrorism. Other issues — NATO's future, U.N. reform, the emergence of China and India, the global environment — are mentioned, but hardly tackled.
* Under Kerry, the United States would foreswear the right of pre-emptive action against its foes. It will employ its military only in a multilateral context, with the U.N.'s consent.
Such a policy would give the United Nations and the allies (who are not identified) a veto on America's use of force. It also means that America will act only after it is attacked, and not to prevent attack on itself or its allies.
Afghanistan is offered as an illustration of a "good war": The U.S. invasion was right because the 9/11 attacks had been orchestrated by al Qaeda from Afghan territory, and because the United Nations approved it and the allies agreed to take part. The Iraq war, however, was a bad one: America should have waited until after an attack from Iraq before reacting.
This "Pearl Harbor Doctrine" would offer insurance to such regimes as North Korea and Iran: They'd know that, short of attacking the U.S. directly, they need fear no military retaliation.
This takes us back to the Cold War, when preserving the status quo was more important than reshaping the world on the basis of democratic ideals. "Democracy will not bloom overnight," the platform insists, echoing Kerry's statement that spreading democracy would not be among his priorities.
The document says a Kerry presidency will help "sustain voices of freedom against repressive regimes." The word "sustain" is meaningless in this context, and the label "repressive regimes" (instead of "anti-democratic regimes") is unfortunate: "Voices of freedom" will be sustained to shout until they are hoarse, but never supported to actually prevail.
* In the war against terror, Kerry would put the emphasis on measures that the United States and its allies must take within their own realm rather than impose on others. This means police cooperation among the 60 countries with active terrorist cells. America would orchestrate the freezing of terrorist assets and the closing of terrorist channels of communication.
The problem is that one man's terrorist is often someone else's "freedom fighter." For example, Syria and Iran will never admit that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and almost all Arab states refuse to label Hamas and Islamic Jihad as terrorist.
There are also thousands of front groups (charities and NGOs, enjoying high patronage in their respective countries), part or all of whose activities could be regarded as terrorist. Those governments are unlikely to disband them to please Washington, especially if refusal entails no cost. The platform's call to "name and shame" countries that finance terror is no deterrent: Many Arab leaders would love to be singled out as supporters of Hamas or Islamic Jihad; it would give them an almost heroic profile in their neck of the woods.
On Iraq, it states that "people of goodwill will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq." This is bizarre. Both Kerry and his running mate John Edwards are people of goodwill, and yet did not disagree on the issue. Both voted for the liberation of Iraq twice and have said nothing to indicate regret on that score.
A Kerry administration may not have a clear policy on Iraq. The document proposes the nomination of an International High Commissioner, a kind of U.N. pasha to rule Iraq for an unspecified period. But we are long past that in Iraq. The Iraqis have an interim government and are preparing for elections within six months. So, who is going to impose a new pasha on them, and how?
The idea of a U.N. pasha was first aired by France's President Jacques Chirac before liberation. To try to set the clock back two years is no way of going forward in Iraq.
Perhaps anxious not to antagonize the Howard Dean wing of the party, the document is vague about the role of U.S. troops in Iraq. Kerry would keep them there, but in the context of " an international presence." Yet, this is already the case. With the end of occupation, the U.S. and other Coalition forces are in Iraq on the basis of a Security Council resolution.
The United Nations has also appointed a new representative to Iraq. The problem is that he cannot go there because the U.N. doesn't want him to be protected by American and Coalition troops, but no one else is offering soldiers for a U.N. "protection force."
All the 198 members of the United Nations are welcome to contribute troops to Iraq. But, apart from the 34 members of the U.S.-led Coalition, none seems willing to do so. Thus, the Democrats' proposal could mean only one thing: putting the existing U.S. and Coalition forces under the U.N. flag.
On Iran, the platform says, "A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to us and our allies." The use of the word "risk," instead of "danger" or "threat," is interesting. Risk has some positive connotations because it could involve both losing and winning, but "danger "or "threat" cannot but be negative.
The term "unacceptable" is also interesting: In the diplomatic lexicon, it represents the lowest level of dissatisfaction. E.g., if members of a friendly government boycott a Fourth of July cocktail party at a U.S. embassy, this is "unacceptable" behavior.
On the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the platform takes back President Clinton's pledge to give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians as their future capital. It calls for a democratic Palestinian state under a new Palestinian leadership, echoing the Bush policy. It also calls for the revival of the special envoy tradition, initiated by Carter and abandoned by the current president. That does not amount to much of a policy.
The platfrom mentions Saudi Arabia twice — first, in reference to Bush's "kid-gloves approach to the supply and laundering of money" for terrorism, and second in the context of a wish to reduce dependence on oil from OPEC. The first is too vague to stand analysis. The second is a pious hope, first expressed by Carter in his failed re-election campaign.