Presidential Politics: Sharp Divergences in the Middle East, Convergence Elsewhere
|
|
Published on: February 23rd 2008 18:26:24
|
| As the presidential primary process unfolds, there is now greater clarity over the major foreign policy alternatives US voters will face in November. Between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, and Republican John McCain significant differences exist, especially on US policy in the Middle East and terrorism. McCain continues to advocate a long-term combat presence in Iraq, combined with an escalation of the international sanctions regime against Iran and Syria. Conversely, both Obama and Clinton state that they are committed to “bringing the troops home” and are open to a broader security dialogue that might include Iran and Syria. Differences persist over missile defense (which McCain would expand and Democrats disband) as well as nuclear proliferation. Here, McCain advocates a hard-line against new foreign civilian nuclear programs. Between the two Democrats, divergence occurs in the details. Obama advocates personal diplomacy with foreign leaders such as Iranian President Ahmadinjead without preconditions, while Clinton would be more cautious. On many issues, however, views are closer. McCain, Clinton and Obama have committed themselves to renewing US multilateral engagement, particularly within NATO and in the Asia-Pacific region. Additionally, there is broad agreement on the need for both unilateral and global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On the strategic level, all three potential administrations will be more critical of Russia and China than has been the case under Bush. |
|
|
