Our Work

Foreign policy issues were mostly an afterthought during the 2000 presidential campaign, and they continue to take a back seat in President-elect George W. Bush’s discussions of the priorities of his incoming administration.

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.

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.

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.”

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.