Foreign Policy in Focus

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.

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.

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.

Before we can gauge how Cheney might perform as vice president, we will need a much more vigorous and detailed foreign policy debate than either Al Gore or George Bush have offered thus far.

As the Clinton Administration pushes for a high-level resumption of final status talks between Israelis and Palestinians, we are again hearing the mantra that both sides need to compromise, both sides cannot have everything they want and other familiar ex

The desire to maintain a course independent of overbearing Western influence, the insistence on having the Golan returned and a desire to maintain greater social equality than found elsewhere in the Arab world goes far beyond the late president.

We need to shift the policy debate in Colombia so that politicians in Washington begin to feel that they can get more support by developing effective alternatives.

The United States has an unprecedented opportunity today to play a constructive role in resolving South Asia’s chronic and expensive rivalry.

It is unfortunate that the first major post-Seattle legislative battle is over China and the WTO

Economic globalization and the financial architecture which sets the rules of play are proving beneficial to those invested in a war economy.

A penetrating critique of current U.S. foreign policy through a series of original essays by leading progressive scholars.