John McCain's worldview

In the first of a series of posts, BritainAndAmerica will be summarising the key foreign policy recommendations of the leading candidates to be America's 44th President.  The posts are summaries of essays that the candidates have written for Foreign Affairs.  We begin with Senator John McCain's contribution: An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom.  Tomorrow we will preview Senator Barack Obama's worldview.

America must prevail in Iraq despite the errors of the pre-surge years: "Defeating radical Islamist extremists is the national security challenge of our time. Iraq is this war's central front, according to our commander there, General David Petraeus, and according to our enemies, including al Qaeda's leadership.  The recent years of mismanagement and failure in Iraq demonstrate that America should go to war only with sufficient troop levels and with a realistic and comprehensive plan for success. We did not do so in Iraq, and our country and the people of Iraq have paid a dear price. Only after four years of conflict did the United States adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by increased force levels, that gives us a realistic chance of success."

>> Video: McCain and Obama offer very differing views on the surge in Iraq, CNN

>> MoveOn.org's attack on McCain ad for his support of the surge

More must be done to address the Talibanisation of Pakistan: "We must continue to work with President Pervez Musharraf to dismantle the cells and camps that the Taliban and al Qaeda maintain in his country. These groups still have sanctuaries there, and the "Talibanization" of Pakistani society is advancing. The United States must help Pakistan resist the forces of extremism by making a long-term commitment to the country. This would mean enhancing Pakistan's ability to act against insurgent safe havens and bring children into schools and out of extremist madrasahs and supporting Pakistani moderates."

We must act outside of the UN if necessary to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power: "Iran, the world's chief state sponsor of terrorism, continues its deadly quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would be even more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy, including the United States and Israel, or even to pass nuclear materials to one of its allied terrorist networks. The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions. If the United Nations is unwilling to act, the United States must lead a group of like-minded countries to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as restrictions on exports of refined gasoline, outside the UN framework. America and its partners should also privatize the sanctions effort by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize the regime in Tehran, whose policies are already opposed by many Iranian citizens. And military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world."

America must remain a staunch ally of Israel: "The next U.S. president must continue America's long-standing support for Israel, including by providing needed military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. The long-elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians must remain a priority. But the goal must be genuine peace, and so Hamas must be isolated even as the United States intensifies its commitment to finding an enduring settlement."

America must befriend and reward moderate Islamic states: "As president, I will employ every economic, diplomatic, political, legal, and ideological tool at our disposal to aid moderate Muslims -- women's rights campaigners, labor leaders, lawyers, journalists, teachers, tolerant imams, and many others -- who are resisting the well-financed campaign of extremism that is tearing Muslim societies apart. My administration, with its partners, will help friendly Muslim states establish the building blocks of open and tolerant societies. And we will nurture a culture of hope and economic opportunity by establishing a free-trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan, open to all who do not sponsor terrorism."

US armed forces need to be larger and better equipped for today's challenges: "Our armed forces are seriously overstretched and underresourced. As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops... America needs not simply more soldiers but more soldiers with the skills necessary to help friendly governments and their security forces resist common foes. I will create an Army Advisory Corps with 20,000 soldiers to partner with militaries abroad, and I will increase the number of U.S. personnel available to engage in Special Forces operations, civil affairs activities, military policing, and military intelligence. We also need a nonmilitary deployable police force to train foreign forces and help maintain law and order in places threatened by state collapse.  Today, understanding foreign cultures is not a luxury but a strategic necessity. As president, I will launch a crash program in civilian and military schools to prepare more experts in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Pashto. Students at our service academies should be required to study abroad."

We must equip our armed forces to interrogate without abusing detainees: "I will enlarge the military's Foreign Area Officer program and create a new specialty in strategic interrogation in order to produce more interrogators who can obtain critical knowledge from detainees by using advanced psychological techniques, rather than the kind of abusive tactics properly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions."

>> Video: McCain clashes with Romney after the latter defends waterboarding

Today's challenges need a League of Democracies to address challenges that the UN will not: "NATO has begun to fill this gap by promoting partnerships between the alliance and great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further by linking democratic nations in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies. This would be unlike Woodrow Wilson's doomed plan for the universal-membership League of Nations. Instead, it would be similar to what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together for peace and liberty. The organization could act when the UN fails -- to relieve human suffering in places such as Darfur, combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, fashion better policies to confront environmental crises, provide unimpeded market access to those who endorse economic and political freedom, and take other measures unattainable by existing regional or universal-membership systems.  This League of Democracies would not supplant the UN or other international organizations but complement them by harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action... If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world's democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision -- just as America led in creating NATO six decades ago."

>> More on McCain's idea of a League of Democracies.

Putin's revanchist Russia should be excluded from the G8: "We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyberattacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom. We must also increase our programs supporting freedom and the rule of law in Russia and emphasize that genuine partnership remains open to Moscow if it desires it but that such a partnership would involve a commitment to being a responsible actor, internationally and domestically."

Japan, Australia and South Korea should be central to Pacific region policy: "I welcome Japan's international leadership and emergence as a global power, encourage its admirable "values-based diplomacy," and support its bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. As president, I will tend carefully to our ever-stronger alliance with Australia, whose troops are fighting shoulder to shoulder with ours in Afghanistan and Iraq. I will seek to rebuild our frayed partnership with South Korea by emphasizing economic and security cooperation and will cement our growing partnership with India."

Standing up to China: "When China builds new submarines, adds hundreds of new jet fighters, modernizes its arsenal of strategic ballistic missiles, and tests antisatellite weapons, the United States legitimately must question the intent of such provocative acts. When China threatens democratic Taiwan with a massive arsenal of missiles and warlike rhetoric, the United States must take note. When China enjoys close economic and diplomatic relations with pariah states such as Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, tension will result. When China proposes regional forums and economic arrangements designed to exclude America from Asia, the United States will react.  China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries. We have numerous overlapping interests. U.S.-Chinese relations can benefit both countries and, in turn, the Asia-Pacific region and the world. But until China moves toward political liberalization, our relationship will be based on periodically shared interests rather than the bedrock of shared values."

The tragedy in Darfur must be stopped by whatever means: "Africa continues to offer the most compelling case for humanitarian intervention. With respect to the Darfur region of Sudan, I fear that the United States is once again repeating the mistakes it made in Bosnia and Rwanda. In Bosnia, we acted late but eventually saved countless lives. In Rwanda, we stood by and watched the slaughter and later pledged that we would not do so again. The genocide in Darfur demands U.S. leadership. My administration will consider the use of all elements of American power to stop the outrageous acts of human destruction that have unfolded there."

America must reduce energy dependence and become a global leader in protecting the environment: "My national energy strategy will amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics. This strategy will include employing technology to achieve new efficiencies in energy extraction and consumption, enforcing conservation, creating market incentives to encourage the development of alternative sources of energy and hybrid vehicles, and expanding sources of renewable energy. I will also greatly increase the use of nuclear power, a zero-emission energy source. Given the proper incentives, our innovators, scientists, entrepreneurs, and workers have the capability to lead the world in achieving energy security; given the stakes, they must.  I have proposed a bipartisan plan in the U.S. Senate to address the problem of climate change and ensure a sustainable future for humankind. My market-based approach will set reasonable caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, provide industries with tradable emissions credits, and create other incentives for the deployment of new and better energy sources and technologies. It is time for America to lead the world in protecting the environment for future generations."

>> Video: McCain tells the 2006 Tory Conference that global warming is real

Please click here for the full text of McCain's piece.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

While I have great respect for John McCain as a person, I feel that his politics are still very much rooted in the 20th century. On the subject of China we need to take and economic stance rather than a military one, China need an export market to support their modernization process, make any trade dependent on a less bellicose China. Russia should be a member of G-8, Russia is a leading player in the world and should not be forced back into isolationism. On the subject of Israel. The United States should support Israel's right to exist but that has to be qualified by treating the Arab states on an equal basis.

On Iran, John McCain is prepared to follow a foolhardy interventionist policy, he has not learnt the lessons of Iraq. On Iraq, the way forward to to break the country up and to withdraw troops. The surge is only a stop-gap measure and cannot be continued indefinitely.

[Oberon Houston]

The US has prospered historically when it didn't have a pre-emptive interventionist policy. Its when they have gone on the offensive against a poorly defined objective that things have unraveled. The war of 1812, when they struck at Canada whilst Britain was on its knees alone against Napoleon was a mess. Iraq is a mess, and don't even get started on Latin America, this lot should be its friends and supporters. But from Cuba to Venezuela to Grenada, Bolivia, with the exception of Chile things are really not that great. Vietnam goes with out any more explanation. And if you really want to see what happens when you try to force a population to your position, read about the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902, a nightmare.

When the US have triumphed, its been against clear objectives and only when really necessary. Entering the WWI at the correct time, and in WWII the US were attacked by an evil axis and again triumphed whilst refusing, rightly, to engage early in a European conflict. During the cold war the more passive mexican stand-off policy again triumphed. No, if one sides with the policy of learning the lessons of history, then you should be alarmed by McCain's views, because he certainly does not. The above reads like another nightmare in the making.

[Umbrella man]

I have now read McCain's full essay and am very disappointed that he couldn't mention Britain in any serious way. The nation Bush said was America's greatest ally gets less of a mention than Australia.

[Moral minority]

The problem for the GOP is that there is no obvious frontrunner. McCain is too old and tainted by his previous Presidential nomination defeats.

Huckabee's gubernatorial record was awful. His tax raising earned him a D rating from the Cato Institute.

Romney is a flip-flopping liberal who is trying to obliterate his "big government" Rockefeller Republican record.

Thompson's campaign never got off the ground due to the disastrous role of his ambitious but mediocre "trophy wife".

Guiliani's marital "adventures" would harm his chances in the bible belt.

Obama would thrash all the GOP candidates. The Republicans must hope that the Dems are stupid enough to pick "Billary".

[Steevo]

A "nightmare in the making" LOL. Which current American candidate will allow you to sleep sweet?

[Editor]

I'd noticed that too Umbrella man. As you'll see from the other essays that I'll highlight over the next days, few of the other candidates are any better.

[Steevo]

I think its the audience he's playing to. When Brown and Cameron speak of efforts and plans fighting terror, how much is the US mentioned?

[Editor]

Often Steevo (2.01pm). America is much more important to world security than Britain so I wouldn't expect the UK to be mentioned by US politicians as prominently as the other way round but an acknowledgment of our strategically important partnership and shared interests would be appropriate.

[Steevo]

Well I understand Tim I'm just not sure what appropriate means in all this. I remember Cameron's world stage discussion and plans with Merkel and the US was not mentioned at all, only inferred to as a negative if I'm not mistaken. A recent statement praising Brit efforts fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan by Brown was void of American efforts in the same battle, which were significant.

I would like to see US politicians mention Britain, a lot. But I think possibly with your forces withdrawing from southern Iraq as well as the impression in our country of an overall Euro sentiment not liking America nor wanting to fight terror, our politicians may not feel its necessary. And they usually only say what they think is necessary, to Americans.

I'm not arguing your point, really.

[Tony Makara]

I'm most concerned by John McCain's comments on Russia. If the Russian move towards more autocratic rule is to be checked then they must continue to be engaged at the G-8. Nations that trade with Russia need to make such trade conditional. The new economic powerhouses like Russia and China need the world as a willing recipient of trade, for that reason the west has a great deal of leverage and can use trade as a way of guiding these nations over human rights etc.

[Denise]

I have to agree with Steevo on why US politicians don't mention Britain.

[Malcolm Dunn]

McCain was by far my favourite candidate for the presidential election.However I'm extremely disappointed to read this. He appears to have learned very little from the past few years and simply wishes to 'stand up' to any country that disagrees with the USA. Is this code for declaring war?

[Oberon Houston]

I also forgot to mention Suez above. Eisenhower made a very astute call here by refusing to support the Anglo-French invasion. By protecting sovereign rights in Egypt, the US could now force Russia to also stay out of the Middle East & put pressure on them wrt Hungary, which was kicking off at the same time. Point is, that foreign policy can be most effective when it seeks to prevent a chain of events by protecting the status quo. McCain is suggesting the exact opposite above - and in doing so is inviting a chain of events to begin, and nobody can predict where they will lead. In the current 'new-world order' shake down, that is a potentially very dangerous game to play. The US is top at the moment and can best protect that position by seeking a passive-aggressive stance, not an active aggressive interventionist policy that by-passes established institutions of international law. Follow that route, and its a green light for everyone to do what they want. Putin would love that.

[David McEwan Hill]

The agenda of a lunatic whose simplistic views could plunge the world back into the cold war and even nuclear holocaust.
I'm surprised that there is support for him expressed even on this site.
Does it still escape the notice of many that the two biggest disasters costing many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been visited on our world by the USA and madmen like McCain?

[Steevo]

Some of the points here by Brits do appear to confirm why US politicians don't care to mention their country when fighting terror or containing oppressive threatening regimes.

Oberon, we haven't prospered in spite of being in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tell the Iraqis we shouldn't have taken out Saddam, or the Afghans the Talaban. Tell the Grenadians we shouldn't have taken out their thug, stopped Cuba's attempt to spread communism, and they are not to have any more Thanksgiving Day. You know these folks would be better off now; you're not there, you're on the other side of the world, but heh so what. And you blame us for Cuba? What do you mean, there's a problem there? And we're at fault? And things would be different, really better or something if it wasn't for the United States? I always thought it was, communism, and a life-long thug at the helm. On this one be safe and just come to Florida and take your case to our Cuban community. And much of Latin America not wanting to be our "friends"? Oh dear I'm at a loss again, what is there about us that their thugs, dictators, left-wing media with trendy anti-Americanism don't like?

Finally, you go back to 1812? Nonsense. And cute angle you wanna place on it implying sleazy US motivations, er lack of bravery or whatever. You want some justification or something for the British empire and nonjustification for the US? Don't go there, YOUR country doesn't look so good. Yours is a rather pathetic, sorry and still typical anti-American bent. Too much of your post is all about you. Going back to 1812 oh brother, like we had a country for how long.

Bypass "established institutions of international law". In other words, the most corrupt thug-loving Jew-hating capitalist-hating American-hating institution going: the United Nations.

[Chike]

Tony Makara,

I agree with you on China.

China has legitimate reasons for wanting to enhance its military capabilities. Chinese history did not begin when Mao made his proclamation at Tiananmen in 1949. Last century China suffered greatly from external aggression - The Boxer Rebellion and its aftermath, The rape of Naking, Unit 731 and various Japanese atrocities.

No one in China wants a weak China.

I am yet to see any serious Western politician take this into account.

Taiwan is a tricky issue. Taiwanese are among the biggest investors in the Chinese market. I have my doubts as to whether the Chinese or the Taiwanese governments seriously want to rock the boat.

On the issue of economics, I have a feeling that we currently over-estimate the amount of economic leverage we have over China. We are so used to Walmart priced goods (made with 20 cents an hour labour). There is no way we can compete with those prices - and China (and Wall Street) knows it. The only other nation that could compete with China on scale and cost is India - but India's infrastructure is light years behind China's.

(America's industrial production was 2.7 trillion while that of China was 2.17 trillion adjusted for PPP. We are not dealing with small fry here)

I also think it rather odd to go bash China on Burma, yet give India a free pass. Afterall, China IS STILL a dictatorship unlike India. India has substantial leverage in Burma and should be held to task.

The future of Zimbabwe is in the hands of Thabo Mbeki - not China. We need to tell him that to his face. If there was a case for humanitarian intervention, Darfur is it. We should ignore China, assemble a force and intervene. It will save lives and teach China an important lesson.

[Tony Makara]

I'm in favour of giving China trade under the following conditions. Their trade must not put our entrepreneurs at a disadvantage, ie, the way the Chinese cook their currency to gain a competitive advantage over western traders, something the Americans are trying to address by using similar means. The great danger is that China will gain a foothold in Africa and milk that continents natural commodities for their own end.

The Chinese must respect the autonomy of Taiwan, and human rights in general. A regime that still executes local officials who don't meet targets on so-called 'corruption' charges, is still a long way away from reaching western standards of human rights. China must allow open and free access to the internet. The way the regime currently filters content tells us a lot about the way they interpret the concept of freedom.

There is, of course, a leading role for China in the world but the Chinese need to understand that they must adhere to western standards of behaviour if they are to be accepted and respected as a nation.

[atheliing]

"Does it still escape the notice of many that the two biggest disasters costing many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been visited on our world by the USA and madmen like McCain?"

What are they, David McEwan Hill? Like some other lefty Brit posters you like to make allegations but when called upon to substantiate them you disappear, like the moronic person who said that "all the wars of the last 50 years were started by the US". When we asked him to name them, he never responded. So, I'm asking you to name those "two biggest disasters"? You know, your educational system is probably the worst I've seen in the western hemisphere. I've never seen so many people who make assertions with absolutely no justification for them.

It just makes you look stupid. And it looks like your leaders are selling you out to the EU. But of course, you ignore that elephant in the living room.... sort of like straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.

[Tony Makara]

Atheliing, interesting point on British education. I'm afraid I have to concede that 95% of our education system needs a complete overhaul, fortunately the top 5% of universities in Britain as as good as anything else in the world. Hopefully the future Conservative government can carry out a root and branch reform of our education system and end the scandal of ten year olds not being able to read.

Its been an interesting discussion on John McCain today, although I don't agree with his world-view I certainly respect him as a soldier of integrity. The one image of John McCain that sticks in my mind is seeing him after he just watched a video of the murder of Nicholas Berg and the anger on John's face spoke volumes about his feelings at that time. He is definitely a good fellow, however I can't agree with the main bulk of his stance.

[Chike]

Tony Makara,

The key beneficiaries of a weak RMB are AMERICAN businesses with significant operations in China (General Motors, Walmart and most of the Fortune 500 list). To break it down, a weak RMB means higher margins for Apple IPODs manufactured in Guangzhou.

This is precisely why both political parties will make the right noises but do precious little.

How can we talk seriously about human rights in China when American companies like Yahoo, Google and Cisco are providing the techonology used to track dissidents?

Internet dissident Wang Xiaoning was sentenced to 10 years in prison because Yahoo China sent his email details to Chinese authorities.

Was Yahoo sanctioned in the US? Not really.

Will Yahoo China do that again? Yes.

Will Yahoo leave China over a trivial issue like the jailing of a dissident? No.

Lenin said that "Capitalists will gladly sell us the rope we'll use to hang them with". China is proving Lenin right.

We are caught between a rock and a hard place - corporate greed vs human rights. Corporate greed will always win and the Chinese leadership knows that.

Please never use language like "but the Chinese need to understand that they must adhere to western standards of behaviour if they are to be accepted and respected as a nation." when you are talking to either Chinese or Russians. Find a way of expressing the same thought in a different language.

[Oberon Houston]

Steevo, The US have not prospered in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite being the movie equivalent of the Imperial forces in Star Wars. When Lucas can predict your foreign policy its scary, get afraid.

Stop getting defensive and take your mark. For one, I was expecting somebody to at least point out that if Clinton had succeeded in killing Bin Laden back in 1890 we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

I remember the Republican riots when 2,550,000 people protesting about the lack of response to the World Trade bombing.

No, I remember Bush talking to 2nd graders and looking non-plus at the aide who told him the World Trade Centre was under attack.

We all know what happened next. Dumb. Dumb?

Before you wade in, answer this:

a) How many civilians have died since Sadam Hussain was executed?

b) How many of them were non-combatants?

c) How many were women and children?

d) How many were US Troops

e) How many deserved to die?

f) How many did you care about?

g) How many of your children did you wave off?

[Tony Makara]

Chike, yes, the sight of western business scraping and bowing to the Chinese certainly turns my stomach. I certainly want to see positive and friendly relations with China, however it is wrong for business to overlook human rights violations in case it effects trade. There is very little reportage of the treatment suffered by Chinese dissidents in the western press. Our journalists are failing the people of China. The Chinese are almost treated like a people of uniformity by the western press, like numbers, almost as if they are a collective mass without individuals. Yet each year more and more people are subjected to prison in China for thought-crime. The China trade bandwagon is making western business blind to the violations of a despotic regime.

[Steevo]

"Steevo, The US have not prospered in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite being the movie equivalent of the Imperial forces in Star Wars. When Lucas can predict your foreign policy its scary, get afraid."

That's kind of a new take, I have no clue what you're talking about but have your nightmares.

"Stop getting defensive and take your mark". You mean like going back to 1812 and draw pistols?

"For one, I was expecting somebody to at least point out that if Clinton had succeeded in killing Bin Laden back in 1890 we wouldn't have the problems we have today."

Is that supposed to be funny or are you just really screwed up with the significance of time upon your reality.

"I remember the Republican riots when 2,550,000 people protesting about the lack of response to the World Trade bombing.

"No, I remember Bush talking to 2nd graders and looking non-plus at the aide who told him the World Trade Centre was under attack.

"We all know what happened next. Dumb. Dumb?"

Indeed you're a bigot. A shallow ignorant fool.

And your final abc's don't add up, both with life now and under Saddam then. Answer your own cheap questions with your own numbers to satisfy your... caring for the Iraqi people?

Let's bring in the tyrants, thugs and money-grabbers from the UN. And let's, I guess also wish for the good old days of the British Empire.

[davod]

Oberon:

Please, cutting and pasting childish talking points is embarrassing even for a Fairy.

[Chike]

Tony Makara,

We are failing in China for the same reason we are failing in Saudi Arabia - money talks.

Gross human rights violations are occuring in Saudi Arabia as we speak, but they are ignored because Her Majesty's Government needs to sell Eurofighters.

Sometimes I feel our governments are high priced whores. The Chinese and the Saudis can afford our price but Mugabe can't and that is why we are breathing down his neck.

Libya can now afford us. That is why Berlusconi, Blair and Sarkozy were in Tripoli in quick succession. That is why Sarkozy errected a Bedouin tent in the centre of Paris and that is why Ghaddafi will be treated to a State visit in London sometime in the future.

Guess where Tony Blair went to give a £200,000 speech - China. Guess who John Major visited few days ago - Vice President Lu Wei in Beijing. These gentlemen did not go to China to discuss human rights. George H.W Bush wasn't promoting human rights out of office, he was promoting arms sales to Saudi Arabia (with the Carlyle Group). Herr Schroeder (the socialist!) is now a well paid employee of Vladimir Putin.

In 2009, George Bush will be selling arms and Oil and Gas deals to the Saudis. I can bet my last penny on that.

Tony, what a leader does out of office tells you more about the sort of person he is than the hot air he blows in office. Only Jimmy Carter (a terrible president) seems to be genuinely interested in human rights. For the rest it is business as usual.

Now the Saudis and Chinese can see through bullshit (even if we Western voters can't).

We are not led by democrats, but by capitalists. Democracy is what we preach when:
1. It is convenient.
2. When can afford to (the monetary costs of refusing to deal with Bob Mugabe are neglible but we cannot afford to piss off King Abdallah or Hu Jintao).
3. In our spare time.