Foreign Policy in Focus

It is difficult to say what any new administration’s policy will be by the end of the president’s term of office.

We should not accept, as fate, the feeling that, if our leaders do not lead, nothing can be done.

Smirked the Statesman of Calcutta, “Foreigners are watching with bemusement the spectacle of Americans tying themselves up in knots over election results.

As President Clinton goes to Vietnam this week, he carries with him a heavy weight of legacy from America’s longest war.

Contentious debates in Zimbabwe resonate across Southern Africa, reflecting the post-apartheid struggles for human rights, economic redistribution, and security.

In the recent debate on “permanent normal trade relations” (PNTR) with China, some progressives argued that failure to ratify the bilateral deal would constitute a retreat into “unilateralism.”

With the likelihood that Texas Governor George W. Bush will become the next president of the United States, there needs to be serious thought as to what kind of foreign policy can be expected over the next four years.

As in 1989, it was not the military prowess of the western alliance bringing freedom to an Eastern European country, but the power of nonviolent action by the subjugated peoples themselves.

Global poverty today is no longer a legacy of the past; the new global poverty is not only the direct consequence of globalization, but an integral part of it.

The United States should certainly maintain its commitment to Israel’s legitimate security needs. What needs to be questioned is the Clinton administration’s support for Israel’s ongoing occupation and its violations of basic human rights.

If there is to be peace in the Middle East, the United States must exercise some “tough love.”

There is a widespread assumption that resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is an extremely complex issue, and that the United States has been and is the best hope for peace. The reality, however, is just the opposite.

President Clinton’s September 1st decision to delay deployment of the Pentagon’s proposed National Missile Defense (NMD) system is an example of good policy and good politics.

Despite years of UN-bashing in Washington, the global organization remains one of the most popular institutions among U.S. voters.

The U.S. must recognize that preventive actions — diplomacy, contributing to global economic development, promoting political and religious freedom — that get to the root causes of conflict are the long-term paths to global peace and stability.

One progressive’s recount of the Republican National Convention.

It is highly unlikely that the upcoming summit between the United States, Israel, and Palestine at Camp David will the kind of positive results that came from the 1978 summit between the United States, Israel, and Egypt.

What is news is that the heating of our atmosphere has propelled our climate into a new state of instability.

Late last month, President Clinton announced the Defense Trade Security Initiative, the most significant loosening of arms-export controls since the end of the Cold War.

The problem with Clinton’s view of Jerusalem is ultimately not a bias towards Israel, but a direct challenge to the authority of the United Nations and some of the most basic tenets of international law.