Britain and America

John Edwards' worldview

John Edwards' essay for Foreign Affairs - Reengaging with the World - is the sixth in BritainAndAmerica's series of summaries of the worldviews of leading presidential candidates.

The Iraq war was one of the greatest strategic failures in US history: "We must move beyond the wreckage created by one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq. Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement."

America must reverse its low standing in the world: "A recent Pew survey showed the United States' approval ratings plummeting throughout the world between 2000 and 2006. This decline was especially worrisome in Muslim countries of strategic importance to the United States, such as Indonesia, where approval dropped from 75 percent to 30 percent, and Turkey, where it fell from 52 percent to 12 percent. Perceptions of America's efforts to promote democracy have suffered as well. In 33 of the 47 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, majorities or pluralities expressed dislike for American ideas of democracy.  We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations... There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, "the leader of the free world." Men and women in Nazi-occupied Europe would huddle around shortwave radios to listen to President Franklin Roosevelt. Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust. Today, under the current administration, this is no longer the case. At the dawn of a new century, it is vital that we win the war of ideas in the world."

Rudy Giuliani's worldview

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."

>> Video: Giuliani attacks Hillary Clinton's policy on Iraq

Mitt Romney's worldview

This is the fourth in a series of summaries of the foreign policy priorities of the principal contenders to be President of the United States.  Today we examine the highlights of Mitt Romney's article for Foreign Affairs:  Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges.  Tomorrow we examine Rudy Giuliani's worldview.

The international environment is difficult but America has been more than equal to greater challenges in the past: "Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel, the world largely stands silent, unable to agree on effective sanctions even as each day the danger grows. Genocide ravages Darfur even as the world stands frozen. In Latin America, leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez seek to reverse the spread of freedom and return to failed authoritarian policies. AIDS and potential new pandemics threaten us in an interconnected world. The economic rise of China and other countries across Asia poses a different type of challenge. It is easy to understand why Americans -- and many others around the world -- feel so much unease and uncertainty. Yet although we face fundamentally different issues today, the United States has a history of rising to meet even greater challenges."

Petraeus deserves the chance to succeed: "Walking away now or dividing Iraq up into parts and walking away later would present grave risks to the United States and the world. Iran could seize the Shiite south, al Qaeda could dominate the Sunni west, and Kurdish nationalism could destabilize the border with Turkey. A regional conflict could ensue, perhaps even requiring the return of U.S. troops under far worse circumstances. There is no guarantee that the new strategy pursued by General Petraeus will ultimately succeed, but the stakes are too high and the potential fallout too great to deny our military leaders and troops on the ground the resources and the time needed to give it an opportunity to succeed."

>> Governor Romney's Foreign Affairs essay was written before Petraeus gave his first report to Congress on the early signs of his mission's success.

>> Video: Romney discusses the consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq

Hillary Clinton's worldview

This is the third in a series of reviews of the worldviews of leading candidates for the White House as set out in the journal Foreign Affairs.  John McCain and Barack Obama have already been featured.  Tomorrow our attention turns to Mitt Romney.  Today we look at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy priorities: Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century.

America must end the unilateralism of the Bush years: "We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.  But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing... U.S. foreign policy must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary to protect our security or avert an avoidable tragedy."

>> Bill Clinton emphasises George W Bush's alleged unilateralism in a soft BBC interview

Democracy promotion should still be a policy goal: "Gnawing hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair. Globalization is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots within societies and between them. Today, there are more than two billion people living on less than $2 a day. These people risk becoming a vast permanent underclass. Calls for expanding civil and political rights in countries plagued by mass poverty and ruled by tiny wealthy elites will fall on deaf ears unless democracy actually delivers enough material benefits to improve people's lives. The Bush administration's policy in Iraq has temporarily given democracy a bad name, but over the long term the value of democracy will continue to inspire the world."

Barack Obama's worldview

Yesterday, in the first of a series examining the foreign policy priorities of the main presidential candidates, we spotlighted John McCain.  Today it's Senator Barack Obama's turn.  Tomorrow Senator Hillary Clinton.  All of the posts are largely based on the candidates' contributions to Foreign Affairs magazine.  Senator Obama's full essay - Renewing American Leadership - can be read there.

There can be no understating of today's dangers: "This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts."

Only a phased withdrawal will force the political solution that Iraq needs: "we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country."

>> Video: Unlike other Democrat hopefuls Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning but makes it clear that he's a hawk on terror generally and supported the Afghan campaign

>> Video: Obama and McCain differ on Iraq strategy

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."