In the fifth summary of leading presidential candidates' foreign policy priorities, we look at the main themes of Rudy Giuliani's September 2007 article for Foreign Affairs: Toward a Realistic Peace. Scroll down this link to see those contenders already profiled. Tomorrow we'll look at John Edwards' worldview.
We are only in the early stages of 'the terrorists' war on us' that began on 9/11: "The defining challenges of the twentieth century ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Full recognition of the first great challenge of the twenty-first century came with the attacks of September 11, 2001, even though Islamist terrorists had begun their assault on world order decades before. Confronted with an act of war on American soil, our old assumptions about conflict between nation-states fell away. Civilization itself, and the international system, had come under attack by a ruthless and radical Islamist enemy. America and its allies have made progress since that terrible day. We have responded forcefully to the Terrorists' War on Us, abandoning a decadelong -- and counterproductive -- strategy of defensive reaction in favor of a vigorous offense. And we have set in motion changes to the international system that promise a safer and better world for generations to come. But this war will be long, and we are still in its early stages. Much like at the beginning of the Cold War, we are at the dawn of a new era in global affairs, when old ideas have to be rethought and new ideas have to be devised to meet new challenges."
Defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan would embolden the enemies of civilisation: "We
cannot predict when our efforts will be successful. But we can predict
the consequences of failure: Afghanistan would revert to being a safe
haven for terrorists, and Iraq would become another one -- larger,
richer, and more strategically located. Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly
fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use
its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S.
allies than it does today. The balance of power in the Middle East
would tip further toward terror, extremism, and repression. America's
influence and prestige -- not just in the Middle East but around the
world -- would be dealt a shattering blow. Our allies would conclude
that we cannot back up our commitments with sustained action. Our
enemies -- both terrorists and rogue states -- would be emboldened.
They would see further opportunities to weaken the international state
system that is the primary defense of civilization. Much as our enemies
in the 1990s concluded from our inconsistent response to terrorism
then, our enemies today would conclude that America's will is weak and
the civilization we pledged to defend is tired. Failure would be an
invitation for more war, in even more difficult and dangerous
circumstances."
America needs a much bigger military: "The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. It may need more, but this is an appropriate baseline increase while we reevaluate our strategies and resources. We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling tankers. Rebuilding will not be cheap, but it is necessary. And the benefits will outweigh the costs."
Missile defence plans must be accelerated: "The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system. America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as "mutual assured destruction" in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes. Nor can it ignore the possibility of nuclear blackmail. Rogue regimes that know they can threaten America, our allies, and our interests with ballistic missiles will behave more aggressively, including by increasing their support for terrorists. On the other hand, the knowledge that America and our allies could intercept and destroy incoming missiles would not only make blackmail less likely but also decrease the appeal of ballistic missile programs and so help to slow their development and proliferation. It is well within our capability to field a layered missile defense capable of shielding us from the arsenals of the world's most dangerous states. President George W. Bush deserves credit for changing America's course on this issue. But progress needs to be accelerated."
Iran must be confronted: "The Islamic Republic has been determined to attack the international system throughout its entire existence: it took U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 and seized British sailors in 2007 and during the decades in between supported terrorism and murder. But Tehran invokes the protections of the international system when doing so suits it, hiding behind the principle of sovereignty to stave off the consequences of its actions. This is not to say that talks with Iran cannot possibly work. They could -- but only if we came to the table in a position of strength, knowing what we wanted."
Reform of the State Department is essential: "Another step in rebuilding a strong diplomacy will be to make changes in the State Department and the Foreign Service. The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world. Reforming the State Department is a matter not of changing its organizational chart -- although simplification is needed -- but of changing the way we practice diplomacy and the way we measure results. Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end."
Giuliani is only leading candidate to note special relationship with Britain: "We should continue to fully engage with Europe, both in its collective capacity as the European Union and through our special relationship with the United Kingdom and our traditional diplomatic relations with France, Germany, Italy, and other western European nations. We highly value our ties with the states of central and eastern Europe and the Baltic and Balkan nations. Their experience of oppression under communism has made them steadfast allies and strong advocates of economic freedom."
>> Video: Mayor Giuliani gives Atlantic Bridge's Inaugural Margaret Thatcher Lecture
Good relations with Russia and China should not be unconditional: "U.S. relations with China and Russia will remain complex for the foreseeable future. Americans have no wish to return to the tensions of the Cold War or to launch a new one. We must seek common ground without turning a blind eye to our differences with these two countries. Like America, they have a fundamental stake in the health of the international system. But too often, their governments act shortsightedly, undermining their long-term interest in international norms for the sake of near-term gains. Even as we work with these countries on economic and security issues, the U.S. government should not be silent about their unhelpful behavior or human rights abuses. Washington should also make clear that only if China and Russia move toward democracy, civil liberties, and an open and uncorrupted economy will they benefit from the vast possibilities available in the world today."
Trade, more than aid, will bring hope to Africa: "More people in the United States need to understand how helping Africa today will help increase peace and decency throughout the world tomorrow. The next president should continue the Bush administration's effort to help Africa overcome AIDS and malaria. The international community must also learn from the mistakes that allowed the genocide in Darfur to begin and have prevented the relevant international organizations from ending it. The world's commitment to end genocide has been sidestepped again and again. Ultimately, the most important thing we can do to help Africa is to increase trade with the continent. U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty."
"Other tools" might be necessary if the UN does not reform: "The UN has proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years. Worse, it has failed to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. It has not lived up to the great hopes that inspired its creation. Too often, it has been weak, indecisive, and outright corrupt... Despite the UN's flaws, however, the great objectives of humanity would become even more difficult to achieve without mechanisms for international discussion. History has shown that such institutions work best when the United States leads them. Yet we cannot take for granted that they will work forever and must be prepared to look to other tools."
America must not foster the creation of a Palestinian state that is hostile to Israel: "Too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."
Can't see much difference between this and McCain.All candidates appear to agree with the need for a bigger military so I assume this will happen which is a good thing.
I hope if he is elected that there is more to Gulianis foreign policy than this hyperbole and that he will conduct diplomacy with more skill than the current administration.
Sadly there is little detail in any of the candidates ideas. What does 'victory' in Iraq or Afghanistan mean?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 02, 2008 at 12:52 PM
This is the platform for permanent confrontation and military intervention. Guiliani is a threat to world peace. His unprepared speech in London was an insult to Lady Thatcher.
Posted by: Moral minority | January 02, 2008 at 01:34 PM
for interest's sake, please can you do a profile of Ron Paul's world view? I can't see it would do any harm
Posted by: lawrence | January 02, 2008 at 05:26 PM
He looks good on foreign policy. A sound understanding of the threat of Islamofascism unlike any of the Democrats including say-anything Hillary, and many Europeans. He's not a fool for dhiminitude, multicultural sensitivities and corrupt meaningless "global institutions". He knows if we don't take it to them they WILL take it to us. He is no fool and doesn't take our freedom for granted.
I assume he will largely continue our effective surge strategy for continued progress in Iraq although by the time Bush leaves office it may be largely under Iraqi security control. This New Years celebration in Baghdad was a wonderfully exciting place to be.
Three former Thatcher aids join his team... well that looks good, because Lady Thatcher was good back in the day.
Posted by: Steevo | January 02, 2008 at 07:45 PM