Peace and Foreign Policy

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.

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.

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.