 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 April 1999 Issue No. 425 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
 |
 |
|
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 15 - 21 April 1999 Issue No. 425
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
|
|
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters The right debates isolationism
By James Zogby *
The US debate over NATO's military campaign to stop Serbian crimes in Kosovo is exposing deep divisions within the Republican Party (GOP).
It has been clear for several years now that there are conflicting currents within the party. During the 1996 presidential race, for example, the battle between the "social values" and "fiscal conservative" wings of the GOP was quite intense. While the issues raised by that debate (specifically abortion and economic protectionism) will no doubt emerge once again in 2000, the NATO campaign has exposed an equally deep intra-party conflict. Of the 10 Republicans vying for the right to be the GOP presidential candidate in 2000, five are opposed to the war and five have supported NATO's intervention.
In the criticisms brought forward by those who are opposed to the war against Serbia, isolationism is a dominant theme. Those who support NATO, on the other hand, argue from the need for a strong US military role to provide leadership in the post-Cold War world.
On one side of this rift is Pat Buchanan, one of the leading spokespersons for the isolationist trend. He is also a champion of traditional social morality and protectionism. Buchanan's view on the war is quite direct: United States armed forces should not go into action unless American honour or American lives or vital American interests are at stake. In his own words, "I don't think there's any vital national interest in whose flag should fly over Kosovo and I don't believe that the United States should be the world's cop looking for thugs to beat up."
On the other side of the GOP divide is Senator John McCain of Arizona. Early on, when the hostilities first began, it was McCain who coined the expression "when we're in it, we have no choice but to win it." He has since described the airwar as an "inadequate" response to the challenge posed by the Milosevic regime. His view is encapsulated in the following statements: "We must begin the mobilisation of our infantry and armoured divisions for possible ground war in Kosovo. We must be prepared to [use ground forces] or Milosevic will never be convinced...[For the United States and NATO] the costs of failure are infinitely greater than the price of victory."
Buchanan has been joined by four other 2000 GOP hopefuls who similarly argue that this conflict is not in the US. national interest. One of these, Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire, wants to see Congress cut off the Administration's right to spend funds on this war. On McCain's side of the debate, in comparison, support has been tepid. The two leading Republican candidates, Governor George W Bush of Texas and Elizabeth Dole, waited a number of days before making any comments and then offered only lukewarm and vague backing for the military effort. After stinging criticism of his failure to show leadership, George W Bush was pushed into a second statement, which one commentator suggested was an "explicit echo" of McCain's position.
What is most interesting about this Republican debate is that it is taking place at all. Throughout the Cold War, the Republican Party was viewed as the more hawkish of the two main US political groups. Now, not only are one-half of the Republican candidates taking an isolationist position, but polling data shows that grassroots Republican voters are moving in the same direction. A Newsweek poll, for example, shows that while Democrats support US involvement with the NATO airstrikes by a four-to-one margin, Republicans are evenly divided on the issue. What such numbers make clear is that Republican candidates who put forth an isolationist message do, in fact, have a constituency within their party.
Yet as the war continues, and as Serbian atrocities mount, it will be increasingly difficult for serious candidates to publicly maintain an isolationist position. Already, the daily barrage of photos of Albanian refugees and news reports of the horrific stories they have to tell have had a substantial impact on public attitudes toward the conflict. In mid-March, only 27 per cent of the American people believed that the war for Kosovo was in the US national interest, while 57 per cent did not. By the end of March, those numbers had changed to 39 per cent versus 51 per cent. Last week 47 per cent said that it was in US national interest to fight, with 42 per cent feeling that it was not. More dramatically, as late as 31 March, 57 per cent of Americans were opposed to sending US ground forces into Kosovo. One week later, 53 per cent now say they would support sending in ground troops.
This shift in public opinion is no doubt the result of the enormity of the humanitarian crisis that has erupted since the air strikes began. But even while the trend of opinion is towards greater involvement, the support that has been garnered to date remains essentially volatile. It is not clear how the public would respond, for example, to extensive US causalities -- or to a stalemate in which, despite heavy loses, Milosevic continued to resist any settlement.
At this point, Democrats are fairly unified behind the president's strategy. Vice-President Al Gore, whose fate in 2000 is tied to the president's success in this present venture, has taken on the role of tough-talking spokesperson for the war effort. Gore, however, like the president, appears to have deep reservations about the advisability of sending US ground troops into battle: if the conflict is prolonged and costly, it is the Democratic candidate, after all, who will pay the long-term political cost.
Republican criticisms of the war might be dismissed by some as simple partisanship, but there is more to the opposition than that. A deep current of nationalism and isolationism has been exposed by the war in former Yugoslavia. The internationalist current represented by past Republican presidents, from Eisenhower to Bush, is now having to fight for its position within the party. As both the Balkan war and the 2000 US presidential campaign develop, it will be important to take note not only of how the war plays out as a campaign issue between the two parties, but how the ideological issue of interventionism versus isolationism unfolds within the GOP.
* The writer is the president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
