As in 1989, it was not the military prowess of the western alliance bringing freedom to an Eastern European country, but the power of nonviolent action by the subjugated peoples themselves.
There is a widespread assumption that resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is an extremely complex issue, and that the United States has been and is the best hope for peace. The reality, however, is just the opposite.
If there is to be peace in the Middle East, the United States must exercise some "tough love."
The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israelâs legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administrationâs support for Israelâs ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.
Despite years of UN-bashing in Washington, the global organization remains one of the most popular institutions among U.S. voters.
President Clinton's September 1st decision to delay deployment of the Pentagon's proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system is an example of good policy and good politics.
One progressive's recount of the Republican National Convention.
The U.S. must recognize that preventive actions -- diplomacy, contributing to global economic development, promoting political and religious freedom -- that get to the root causes of conflict are the long-term paths to global peace and stability.
It is highly unlikely that the upcoming summit between the United States, Israel, and Palestine at Camp David will the kind of positive results that came from the 1978 summit between the United States, Israel, and Egypt.
Before we can gauge how Cheney might perform as vice president, we will need a much more vigorous and detailed foreign policy debate than either Al Gore or George Bush have offered thus far.