Same difference?
As the American elections draw near, Mehammed Mack and Shahin Shamsabadi look into the Middle East foreign policy platforms of the Democratic Party's candidates
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry may have stated that he will push for "multilateralism and an increased dialogue" with the outside world. His policies on Iraq and the Middle East peace process, however, differ only slightly from those of United States President George W Bush.
Although Kerry plans to officially announce his foreign policy ideas at the Democratic National Convention at the end of July, the bulk of his policies are well known and included in the 16,000-word Democratic Party platform. Some American analysts point out that Kerry is walking a thin line in his attempts to benefit from the elusiveness of his policies and similarities to the conservative policies of the Republican Party, especially in regards to Iraq. "John Kerry's stance on foreign policy departs from Bush's policies on Iraq in language only, but not in substance," Naseer Aruri, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, told Al-Ahram Weekly.
Interesting developments in the Kerry constituency is that the majority of Democrats -- 82 per cent, according to a CNN/Gallup poll, taken on 21-23 June -- now believe that the entire war was a mistake.
In spite of this, Kerry's position has been that, "[the US] cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilising force in the Middle East." He recently advocated for 40,000 more troops for the US military but he has been unclear on whether they are to be stationed abroad "to quell the terrorist threat" in Iraq or elsewhere. This view shows that the difference between his policies on the future of Iraq and those of the Bush administration is in fact minimal.
Kerry, meanwhile, has sought to lure the largely undecided US electorate who see the Iraq invasion as justified but are concerned about America's bearing the burden of war alone. He has since blamed the fiasco in Iraq on the Bush administration and failed intelligence, and accuses Bush of misleading the American public and blatant abuse of power. He also defends his vote-of-confidence for the war by claiming that he was coaxed into the decision and that he has always supported a multilateral approach in addressing the Iraq crisis in contrast to Bush's unilateralism.
According to Aruri, Kerry is expected to act on his multilateral approach in preparing a solution for Iraq based on the concept that the more troops other nations contribute, the less America will be seen as an occupier and the faster the withdrawal. Kerry's rhetoric about building a multinational coalition and repairing international alliances, decorated with tough language about terrorism and national security, does not rule out a possible commitment to Bush's concept of preventive wars.
In efforts to diversify his support base, Kerry initially spoke against the Israeli separation wall to an audience at the Arab-American Institute. He came immediately under enormous pressure from Israeli lobbyist organisations and has since amended his stance. He has openly vowed to "never do anything to compromise [Israel's] security", and moved to express total support of the construction of the separation wall, now referring to it as a "security fence [and] a legitimate act of self-defence erected in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israeli citizens".
Kerry has called for an "independent" Palestinian state but has showed an unconditional support for the wall and all Israeli "defensive" operations, including the Defensive Shield plan of 2002. According to Kerry's position paper on Israel, "John Kerry: Strengthening Israel's Security and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship", "in any final settlement for Israel to remain a Jewish state, Palestinians must settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel, and that in light of demographic realities, a number of settlement blocks will likely become part of Israel."
Recently, Kerry strongly condemned the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) decision, which demanded the removal of the wall, and called for the US to block a United Nations resolution to implement the historic verdict. "I do not believe that the ICJ should even be considering this issue given that they do not have jurisdiction," a press release by Kerry on his website stated.
Kerry has gone so far as to equate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism, vowing to take to task governments who tolerate what he describes as an "escalating threat". His position paper on Israel states, "anti-Semitism masked in anti-Israel rhetoric is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world."
Similar to President Bush, Kerry has placed the blame of the prolonged peace process on the leadership of the Arab world and has openly criticised Yasser Arafat as a failed leader who needs replacement. He also has plans to manipulate the Middle East region and governments through the process of maintaining Israel's military superiority by "carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region".
"Kerry tries to play catch-up with Bush as the latter takes the initiative, endorsing Sharon's broad violations of humanitarian and customary international law, including massacres and ethnic cleansing," Aruri, author of Dishonest Broker: The US Role in Israel and Palestine, told the Weekly.
The Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards' foreign policy ideas are characterised by political ambition and do not reflect the tame pragmatism of centrist Democrats like Kerry. Prior to selecting him as a running mate, Kerry even attacked Edwards, accusing him of being an amateur: "The American people want an experienced hand... This is not the time for on-the-job training on national security issues."
After 11 September, Edwards went into high gear introducing national security legislation, possibly preparing future standards for a nation obsessed with safety. None of the three bills he forwarded -- on seaport security, bio-terrorism, and cyber terrorism -- made it to the senate floor for a vote.
Edwards candidly spoke of his position on voting for the Iraq invasion decision during a primary debate: "The first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote -- period," he announced, "And I did what I did based on a belief that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat."
Edwards' foreign policy proposals, drafted in January prior to the announcement of his selection, calls for a more direct involvement in the Middle East. "America will never defeat violent terror," he once said, "so long as hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim world and elsewhere are denied the right to express themselves peacefully, openly and democratically."
The majority of such proposals blatantly call for US-backed means of pressure upon selected countries to adapt the policies set forth for them by the US through either direct demands or scrutiny, through the threat of financial reprimands or through international bodies such as the UN.
His first proposition has been the establishment of a "freedom list", naming political and religious prisoners of the world in the hope of shaming repressive governments into freeing the imprisoned. Critics have pointed out that not only will such a stance endorse the imposition of the US' whims upon other nations, but will result in a complicated scenario with Israel in the justification for prisoners in its custody.
Edwards' initiatives include the familiar call for bringing "democracy" to the Middle East, echoing the Bush rhetoric, and the construction of a Middle East "organisation for security and cooperation". Edwards has also concentrated on measures furthering US involvement in other nations' domestic affairs by suggesting the formation of a "democracy caucus" at the UN. The purpose of the caucus would be to isolate and reprimand those nations who refuse to undertake reforms stipulated by the US.
Despite all the diplomacy talk, Kerry reserves for himself the right of unilateral action if international means are exhausted. "We will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake," reads his platform, strikingly similar to Bush's statement, in his January State of the Union Address, that he would not wait for a "permission slip" to defend his country.
Whereas Kerry sticks pretty much to the line of soft influence through free trade, negotiations and manipulation, Edwards has come up with his own "strategy for freedom". Edwards differs from Kerry in the degree to which he would involve the US in promoting democracy, but both candidates still mirror the Bush administration.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/699/in3.htm