A Presidential Foreign Policy Guide: The Dems

The global landscape today is much more rocky and uncertain than it seemed eight years ago. American forces remain stuck in Iraq, Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and threaten the stability of the rest of the Middle East, genocide continues in Darfur, and China and India continue to grow rapidly. The way the presidential candidates propose to deal with these issues and the differences of their policies are therefore extremely important. Nevertheless, between insignificant sound bites and the media’s focus on menial issues, it has become more and more difficult to figure out the various candidates’ positions. A number of us at the Roosevelt Institution, a non-partisan student think tank, have therefore researched the top three Democratic candidates and compiled their views on the most important foreign policy issues facing the United States today. We have looked at each candidate’s stances on the Middle East, with special attention to Iran and Iraq; examined plans for dealing with the growing strength of China; and seen how each candidate plans to deal with the crisis in Darfur.

Obama:

Barack Obama’s Middle East policy falls in the middle of the spectrum among Democratic candidates. According to his Web site, the senator from Illinois currently supports a bill calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, leaving behind a limited number for “force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and counter-terrorism operations.”

Obama has stated that he would seek to meet with the regional players in order to find a solution to the sectarian crisis ravaging Iraq. For example, Obama differentiated himself from Hillary Clinton by saying that he would meet with the Iranian leadership, including president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without preconditions. Just last month, Obama reasserted this point by stating in a New York Times interview that he would not only talk to Iran and Syria, but also offer incentives to entice them to “cooperate,” assailing Bush for a history of intransigent, strong-armed foreign policy. Despite this rhetoric, Obama has yet to take concrete action that demonstrates a more conciliatory tone towards Iran. He neglected, for example, to vote up or down on a resolution declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, while Senators Biden and Dodd voted against it.

In terms of China and East Asia, the senator’s Web site reveals little of how he would cope with China’s rapid growth and its potential to play a larger role in Asia. For the region as a whole, his Web site offers only broad, meaningless rhetoric claiming the senator will “work to develop a more effective regional framework with the countries in the region to promote stability and confront transnational threats.”

Though Obama’s Web site notes clearly that the senator is committed to ending the genocide in Darfur and that he has visited refugee camps, it does not outline a specific method of how he would go about such action. Obama has mostly voted in favor of Congress’ Darfur legislation, which has, for the most part, had little effect.

Obama’s foreign policy strength may actually be found in his personal history. Unlike other Democrats, Obama did not vote for the war in Iraq and even vocally denounced it. Therefore, some believe that Obama will be able to work better with his counterparts in the Middle East and throughout the international arena. As Andrew Sullivan wrote in the Atlantic Monthly, “Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation.”

Edwards:

Like fellow Democratic frontrunners, John Edwards supports a smaller American presence in Iraq. His Web site calls for a “complete withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq within ten months.” Though he not only voted for, but also sponsored the authorization of war with Iraq, Edwards has recently issued an apology for that vote and strongly denounced President Bush’s plan for a “troop surge.” Like Obama, Edwards has said that he would engage “in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria.”

Outside Iraq, Edwards strongly advocates proactive diplomacy with Iran to both reduce the probability of a Middle East nuclear arms race and stabilize the region as a whole. Nonetheless, Edwards is purposefully ambiguous, for he said that he will only “negotiate with Iranian leaders who ...[recognize] the international rule of law, the rights of Jews, and the state of Israel.” In an effort to marginalize extremists and promote regional stability, Edwards also wants to introduce “Iran to democratic culture and ideas.”

Edwards’ plan to quell conflict in Darfur calls for cooperation between the United States and NATO “to accelerate the peacekeeping process and stop the genocide.” He stated in June 2007 that he supports the implementation of a no-fly zone over Darfur. Furthermore, he intends to increase social spending for the African continent. In Uganda, Edwards is a vocal advocate for both the Juba peace talks and increased funding for the U.N. Juba Initiative fund. He “believes the United States has both the capacity and the responsibility to support the peace process in Uganda.”

Edwards’ plans for China, like those of most of the Democratic candidates, are very vague. He says merely that, “on issues such as trade, climate change, and human rights, our overarching goal must be to get China to commit to the rules that govern the conduct of nations.” Nevertheless, he has not laid out a clear plan for getting this change to occur.

Clinton:

From voting for force authorization, to supporting a troop withdrawal, Hillary Clinton has had perhaps the toughest challenge of any candidate regarding Iraq. Today, her approach is distinctly similar to Obama’s. She supports a phased withdrawal, leaving only residual troops to act as a rapid reaction force to ensure stability. However, there would be no permanent American bases. Earlier this year, Clinton sponsored the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act, a bill that would have set a hard cap on troop levels.

Unlike many of her counterparts in the Senate, Clinton recently voted in favor of a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Critics allege that Clinton is antagonizing a rising regional hegemony. Nonetheless, she also recently cosponsored a bill to ensure that President Bush cannot act on Iran without the authority and oversight of Congress. Clinton claims that as president she would open diplomatic channels with Iran, but caveats this by claiming all options must remain on the table, including military force. Moreover, she would require certain conditions to meet with the leadership, including Ahmadinejad.

Like many Democrats, Clinton has not addressed the issue of China directly, choosing instead to concentrate on the indirect consequences of China’s economic rise. In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations given last year, she made clear that currently the U.S. relies too heavily on China’s help in reigning in North Korea.
One of Clinton’s pet issues has been the continuing genocide in Darfur. She has sponsored numerous resolutions and bills condemning the genocide and actively working for a no-fly zone to be enforced by NATO, but without U.S. troops. She has also voted for sanctions against companies and individuals that are complicit in these killings.

Despite their rhetoric, the Democratic candidates have remained unclear about concrete plans on numerous issues. Nevertheless, we hope that this article breaks some of the fog of the rhetoric and mud slinging, and sheds some light on what positions or qualities each candidate has in terms of foreign policy.

Brandon Hammer is a Columbia College sophomore and a junior fellow of the Roosevelt Institution. Nathan Morgante is a Columbia College junior majoring in economics and a fellow of the Roosevelt Institution. Vedant Misra is a Columbia College junior majoring in physics and a member of the Roosevelt Institution.