.Real world unites presidential three
The only thing that is certain in American politics today is that one of three very different candidates, Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama, will be the next US president. But the differences between the three contenders are much more about style than they are about substance, especially on the issues that matter most to Australia.
In the world's eyes an Obama presidency would most clearly turn the page on the Bush Administration's bellicose unilateralism. Obama, "Africa's son" with a Muslim middle name, has said that US foreign policy must be "grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity".
At the other end of the spectrum, McCain seems to relish the possibility that the US may stay in Iraq "for a hundred years", describes Islamic extremism as "the transcendent challenge of the 21st century"- and is willing to act alone on both if necessary.
Clinton stands between these two poles. She shares the world's anger that the Bush Administration entered Iraq on false pretences regarding the purported weapons of mass destruction. But her reinvigoration in the Democratic primaries has been based on her insistence that she can hit the ground running to tackle head on threats to US national security that she considers imminent, unprecedented and scary.
The differences are vast in philosophy and rhetoric among Clinton, McCain and Obama. The problem is that the real world challenges the US faces will likely overwhelm them.
McCain will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to secure ill-defined victory. Clinton and Obama want to get out as soon as possible. But, in Obama's careful phrasing, the US should be "just as careful getting out as the Bush Administration was careless going in".
As McCain is happy endlessly to repeat, a precipitous US pullout from Iraq, the rallying cry of Democratic voters in this election, would probably be calamitous for Iraq, the Middle East and the US's credibility as a global power.
Clinton and Obama know it, too. They say that only a US exit will force the Iraqis to come together as a nation. But the more the Democrats prevaricate, the less credible their exit threats, and the harder the Democrats' holy grail of "responsible withdrawal" will become.
The smart money must be on several tens of thousands of US troops still in Iraq when Americans choose a president in 2012, no matter who wins this year.
While the US remains obsessed with Iraq, Afghanistan is obviously more important for Australia, Canada and Europe. Here, even the rhetoric of the three presidential candidates is very similar - and it is all about troops under NATO command shouldering more of the burden of the frontline war-fighting.
McCain says his Afghanistan strategy centres on "increasing NATO forces, suspending the debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight".
Clinton and Obama often say Iraq has diverted US attention from the war that is worth fighting in Afghanistan. But though both advocate a broader US commitment to Afghanistan, they join McCain in insisting that Australia, Canada and Europe do more.
The simple political reality is that the American public's tolerance for war fighting is running on empty because of Iraq. Australia, Canada and Europe cannot hold onto the false hope that the next US president will take the war in Afghanistan off their hands.
The news seems much better for the US's allies where climate change is concerned. The surprise here is not that Clinton and Obama have both committed to US participation in a post-Kyoto agreement with an enforceable global cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, Australians should be heartened to know that the US will be an active and positive contributor to the global challenge of climate change whoever is elected in November, McCain being just as committed as his Democratic rivals.
The same is true for ending the Bush Administration's intransigence on the fight against terrorism versus human rights. All three presidential candidates are committed to closing down Guantanamo Bay and either releasing or trying the prisoners. All three also would declare the practice of so-called waterboarding illegal and recommit the US to global definitions of torture. McCain's maverick independence infuriates hard core Republicans, but it may bring some pleasant surprises to the rest of the world.
The world is waiting with bated breath for the next US president, and a new US foreign policy. Irrespective of who wins, the world will sometimes be disappointed (Iraq), sometimes be pleased (climate change), and sometimes be irritated (Afghanistan).
SMH
In the world's eyes an Obama presidency would most clearly turn the page on the Bush Administration's bellicose unilateralism. Obama, "Africa's son" with a Muslim middle name, has said that US foreign policy must be "grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity".
At the other end of the spectrum, McCain seems to relish the possibility that the US may stay in Iraq "for a hundred years", describes Islamic extremism as "the transcendent challenge of the 21st century"- and is willing to act alone on both if necessary.
Clinton stands between these two poles. She shares the world's anger that the Bush Administration entered Iraq on false pretences regarding the purported weapons of mass destruction. But her reinvigoration in the Democratic primaries has been based on her insistence that she can hit the ground running to tackle head on threats to US national security that she considers imminent, unprecedented and scary.
The differences are vast in philosophy and rhetoric among Clinton, McCain and Obama. The problem is that the real world challenges the US faces will likely overwhelm them.
McCain will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to secure ill-defined victory. Clinton and Obama want to get out as soon as possible. But, in Obama's careful phrasing, the US should be "just as careful getting out as the Bush Administration was careless going in".
As McCain is happy endlessly to repeat, a precipitous US pullout from Iraq, the rallying cry of Democratic voters in this election, would probably be calamitous for Iraq, the Middle East and the US's credibility as a global power.
Clinton and Obama know it, too. They say that only a US exit will force the Iraqis to come together as a nation. But the more the Democrats prevaricate, the less credible their exit threats, and the harder the Democrats' holy grail of "responsible withdrawal" will become.
The smart money must be on several tens of thousands of US troops still in Iraq when Americans choose a president in 2012, no matter who wins this year.
While the US remains obsessed with Iraq, Afghanistan is obviously more important for Australia, Canada and Europe. Here, even the rhetoric of the three presidential candidates is very similar - and it is all about troops under NATO command shouldering more of the burden of the frontline war-fighting.
McCain says his Afghanistan strategy centres on "increasing NATO forces, suspending the debilitating restrictions on when and how those forces can fight".
Clinton and Obama often say Iraq has diverted US attention from the war that is worth fighting in Afghanistan. But though both advocate a broader US commitment to Afghanistan, they join McCain in insisting that Australia, Canada and Europe do more.
The simple political reality is that the American public's tolerance for war fighting is running on empty because of Iraq. Australia, Canada and Europe cannot hold onto the false hope that the next US president will take the war in Afghanistan off their hands.
The news seems much better for the US's allies where climate change is concerned. The surprise here is not that Clinton and Obama have both committed to US participation in a post-Kyoto agreement with an enforceable global cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, Australians should be heartened to know that the US will be an active and positive contributor to the global challenge of climate change whoever is elected in November, McCain being just as committed as his Democratic rivals.
The same is true for ending the Bush Administration's intransigence on the fight against terrorism versus human rights. All three presidential candidates are committed to closing down Guantanamo Bay and either releasing or trying the prisoners. All three also would declare the practice of so-called waterboarding illegal and recommit the US to global definitions of torture. McCain's maverick independence infuriates hard core Republicans, but it may bring some pleasant surprises to the rest of the world.
The world is waiting with bated breath for the next US president, and a new US foreign policy. Irrespective of who wins, the world will sometimes be disappointed (Iraq), sometimes be pleased (climate change), and sometimes be irritated (Afghanistan).
SMH
posted by madtom at 6:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home