REALITY CHECK: OBAMA AND CLINTON'S FOREIGN POLICY

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

STEPHEN ZUNES, FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS - Senator Clinton's foreign
policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton's
administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine
Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most
influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is
Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her
husband's administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member
of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of
state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany.
He also served as President Jimmy Carter's assistant secretary of state
for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting
Suharto's repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the
Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to
be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream
strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic
administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew
Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan
Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included
some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic
Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the
Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard
Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and
international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New
Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq -
and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have
particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as
retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia's occupation of
East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel's occupation of the
West Bank.

While some of Obama's key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed
concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton's
advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the
military.

While Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the
importance of U.S. multilateral engagement, Albright allies herself with
the jingoism of the Bush administration, taking the attitude that "If we
have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the
indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the
future."

While Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven
development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and
has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs, Berger
and Albright have been outspoken supporters of globalization on the
current top-down neo-liberal lines.

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized a policy toward
Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the
supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists
that "the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States," the
country is "the most pressing problem nation," and Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. . .

Senator Clinton's foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of
her husband's administration, were virtually all strong supporters of
President George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By
contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama's foreign policy team was
opposed to a U.S. invasion.

During the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors were suspicious of the
Bush administration's claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national
security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation
of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security
advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war
"should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy."

By contrast, Clinton's top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of
state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained "a clear and
present danger at all times." . . . Other top advisors to Senator
Clinton - such as her husband's former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright - confidently predicted that American military power could
easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such
confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will
through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for
President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors . . .

Not every one of Clinton's foreign policy advisors is a hawk. Her team
also includes some centrist opponents of the war, including retired
General Wesley Clark and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.  On balance,
it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush's,
would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports
regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international
law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast,
a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual
evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with
America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the
country's international legal obligations, and to use military force
only as a last resort.

Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama's
foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted,
members of Obama's foreign policy team are "more likely to stress 'soft
power' issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of
failed states." As a result, "Obama may be more open to challenging old
Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches."

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||