Report prepared by David Rawson | The SOURCE takes a stand: Foreign Policy
There is a clear distinction in the approaches to foreign policy that Bush and Kerry have proposed in this campaign. In Bush’s view, America is the world’s greatest force for freedom. In its unparalleled position of power, it has a responsibility to bring liberty and democracy to the Middle East, where the outlook for those ideals is the darkest but most necessary. By planting the seeds of change in Iraq, Bush will continue to use unilateral or preemptive action to rid the world of tyranny and terrorism. Bush’s vision values freedom and self-reliance as the antidotes to undemocratic regimes. Global harmony will be within reach when democracy spreads, and this will only happen if the US aggressively pursues and defeats individuals and governments that oppose freedom and democracy.
Kerry has no equivalent of this broad vision of the world and America’s role in it. He believes that US foreign policy is arrogant and ignorant. In his view, we must restore traditional European alliances to legitimately fight the War on Terror. Today, the international balance of power heavily favors the US, and it is our responsibility to use that power to reform illiberal and undemocratic governments. This is not arrogance; it is commitment and a duty to restore peace to a post-9/11 world. However, Kerry is not optimistic about the transforming power of democracy in the Middle East, and believes that diplomacy is the key to American prosperity and global harmony. These are fundamental differences in strategy: whereas Bush values freedom and democracy as the paramount foreign policy goals, Kerry values internationalism. Instead of using every resource of the American military to fight the war on terror, Kerry plans to acquiesce to anti-American European powers and the UN. Kerry’s soft diplomatic strategy cedes national security responsibility to the elitist international power structure and is not reinforced by the threat of serious economic or military consequences.
In Bush’s vision, the values of freedom and democracy come first, and the capabilities of US diplomacy and military action are the most effective ways to establish those values where they do not yet exist. The optimism of this vision is based on the presumption that the world will be better off with democracy taking hold where terrorists and dictators once ruled. Instead, Kerry wants traditional alliances and multilateral cooperation to come first. He hopes that the nations of the world can come together and work cooperatively to minimize threats and establish security and stability. A centralized global authority is not going to aggressively fight the war on terror.
In its current position of influence and power, the US cannot afford to hold back its diplomatic and military capabilities in order to restore traditional alliances and sign on to multilateral agreements with UN elites. Our national security will be stronger when democracy and peace spread over nations that have been oppressed by tyranny and terrorism. The broad vision of a world rid of freedom-hating terrorist-sponsoring governments is necessary to effectively use the current balance of power in favor of liberty and democracy. Bush’s aggressive pursuit of that vision reminds us that Kerry prioritizes international authorities that are not nearly as optimistic and aggressive on the war on terror. Global interdependence is less of a concern now than the triumph of freedom and self-reliance over terrorism and tyranny.
Comments