For the past few months it seems that New Delhi has been shrouded in a thick, meandering fog. For the auto rickshaw drivers and fruit vendors, the intelligentsia and the elite who occupy the steamy Gangetic Plains, the fog has become, as all things in India must, symbolic of an uncertain future. A Pakistan on the verge of doom? An Olympic China who this summer will put India in the shadows? An increasingly bellicose Russia? Wrong on all counts.
On March 17, New York Senator and Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton gave a speech at George Washington University outlining her plans to de-escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Though she called for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades over the next several years, she continued to refuse to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion, to acknowledge the illegality of the war, or to fully explain her false claims made at that time regarding Iraq’s military capabilities and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Nor was she able to offer an explanation as to what led to her dramatic shift from a supporter of the ongoing war and occupation as recently as a year and a half ago to her current more critical perspective.
As expected, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected this week as the new president of the Russian Federation with 70% of the vote. These elections were little more than a democratic charade. The Kremlin manipulated the media, the party system, and the courts to ensure a stable transition within the country’s political elite.
One issue that will not be discussed in tonight’s presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is our nation’s burgeoning military budget. Earlier this month, the Bush administration announced a proposed military budget of $614 billion, not counting the full cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This represents the highest level of spending since World War II, even though our most dangerous adversary is a dispersed terrorist network measured in the tens of thousands, not a nuclear-armed Soviet Union whose armed forces were measured in the millions.
Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.
As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.
As the race for the White House heats up, presidential candidates are using the turmoil in Pakistan to show off their foreign policy credentials. Unfortunately few of the candidates have demonstrated a clear understanding of the complexities Pakistan presents, including the political situation, nuclear safeguards, al-Qaeda, and terrorism.
The strong showings by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in the early contests for the Democratic presidential nomination don’t just mark a repudiation of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy and “war on terrorism.” They also indicate a rejection of the Democratic Party establishment, much of which supported the invasion of Iraq and other tragic elements of the administration’s foreign policy.
In this extra-long (and far from finished) campaign season, we have heard a lot from the candidates. We have seen them in many debates and public forums — engaging with one another and with the animated snowmen and gun-toting hunters that populated the YouTube debates.
But all this exposure has not resulted in an abundance of substance. Hot issues like immigration and gun control provide juicy sound bites and smoking zingers on both sides but fail to inform voters on the candidates’ stances on looming and critical foreign policy issues. Perhaps even more importantly, this flavor-of-the-week approach fails to engage or activate the millions of Americans alienated from electoral politics.