 |
|
 |
|
| FOREIGN POLICY | |
 Election 2000 
|
|||
|
|
Viewers
have commented on hundreds of topics and and issues. To read some selected
comments select a general category: Domestic Issues Leadership Political Process |
|
|
Brad
Yoneoka of Seattle, WA: Threat of Regional Nuclear War In this post-Cold War era, the greatest threat to US peace and prosperity--as well as the most ignored issue {so far} in the Y2K Pres. election campaign--is that of the outbreak of regional nuclear war. While the Clinton-late Gringrich administration correctly and successfully
addressed the huge Reagan Budget Deficit as the number one problem,
American defense and foreign policy suffered severely. Perhaps the US
can only address one Big Problem at a time. Shifting to the commercial
emphasis on expanding free trade and foreign investments abroad, the
US has failed to develop an appropriate strategy to meet the demands
of a post-cold war War. It is clear to many serious observers and participants
in world affairs today that the threat of nuclear war is GREATER today
than it was in the Cold War. While the US made serious efforts to prevent
nuclear proliferation, it has occured anyway {perhaps a little slower}.
Nuclear weapons capabilities are now in the hands of opposing governments
that are in the midst of major regional conflicts. These capabilities
are only increasing as tensions in these theatres continue to rise.
What should the US foreign policy and defense policy be in response
to this threat? What should be the strategic realignment of US foreign services as well as of the defense departments? What should the President {and Congress} be doing to address these critical issues? These are--i believe--the DOMINANT REAL issues facing the US today. Yet they seem not to be addressed publicly by the major US political and military leaders today. Our sole superpower complacency has blinded us to our most serious foreign policy issue today. Henry
Fawell of Potomac, MD: What will the U.S.' military role be in 21st century Europe. Many scholars argue that the creation of the EU will lead to a protectionist sentiment in Europe. Some countries, such as Poland, have already expressed their disenchantment with western intervention. Yet, as the Balkan problem shows, Europe still can not right its own ship without U.S. military leadership. Will our role change with the development of the EU? Peter
Schuck of Encino, CA: Given the recent position vis-à-vis intra-Sino relations taken by the ROC and recent talk of the possible extension of an anti-ballistic safety net to cover Formosa, it would be refreshing to hear a full debate on whither the US relationship with Taiwan and American China policy in general, what with the latest espionage/illicit campaign contributions/continued pressures on Tibet/provocations in the Spratleys, etc., on the part of Peking. Wm
Miller of Pahrump, NV: Minumize our relations with the UN and NATO. John
Kucera of Palo Alto, CA: Leverage our current political and economic dominance to stabilize the internation community with particular emphasis on Russia. The current economic crisis in Russia has already created a substantial backlash against the West, and may be a fertile ground for the emergence of a more hostile government. We cannot afford to go back to the days of the Cold War. We have to find a way to help Russian citizens emerge from their harsh economic "winter" so that they will have more of a stake in the stability and harmony of nations R.W.
Cranston of Sitka, AK: Develop a national dialog on our responsibility to NATO, U.N., IMF, World Bank, trading partners, and other nations of the world.This should be codified and passed by the legislature. Steven
G. Brant of New York, NY: I would like the 2000 election to focus on America's mission (or purpose) in a post-Cold War world. From my own international development work, I have learned that we are living in a time of historic possibilities...a time when it is finally possible (technologically) for the survival needs of all mankind to be met. We need no longer live in a world dominated by the belief that there must always be "winners and losers" because there isn't enough for everyone. Unfortunately, the end of the Malthusian world view is a subject that has never been put before "the people." It is currently discussed only by those already involved in the subject. The World Bank's recently released Comprehensive Development Framework would make an excellent basis for questions posed to the candidates...questions such as "Do you think it is technologically possible to eliminate the root cause of suffering and war: the belief that 'for me to win, someone else must lose -- because there isn't enough for all of us to live'" If so, what would you be willing to do, politically, to help bring about a global understanding of the breakthrough opportunity before us -- the opportunity to finally fulfill humanity's greatest dream: a world of global prosperity for all?" This is what I wish the 2000 election would be about: America's opportunity to lead the world on a quest to rebuild our political, economic, and social systems so that we may take advantage of this breakthrough international development reality. Louis
Nelms of Mason City, IL.: Issues: 1. Sustainability: Are there any sustainable features of our civilization
from an energy,natural resource, and population 2. Does the United States have an energy policy? 3. What role does the state play in globalization? 4. Globalization is rewarding the rich immensely. How will the US deal with the losers internally and abroad? Will our foreign policy be shaped by the need to protect our "vital interests", i.e. our trading interests, from those who are left behind? 5. China: Besides its politics and human right abuses, does not the greatest threat arise from the ecological basket case that it will likely become? 6. Russia: Should we not include Russia in a massive Marshall Plan along with the Balkans? 7. Democracy in America: What does it really mean anymore? Is money erasing the differences between the parties? Do party affiliations have more to do with keeping money ties than with promoting common human interests? Is the failure of campaign finance reform a sign of class struggle in America? ... J.
T. Sink of Tokyo, Japan: I think America's Foreign Policy must be at the top of the list for the candidates. For seven years, the President who actively avoided military service has not only been sending troops to Haiti, Bosnia, and Macedonia, but ordering attacks on Iraq, Sudan, and Serbia. We have suddenly become very aggressive in pursuing so-called "humanitarian" goals, and this has alienated other powers such as Russia and China. Does exhausting our military in these numerous foreign adventures have any relation to the defense of real national interests? The use if military force should only be a last resort--it usually signifies the failure of foreign policy. It should not be the primary instrument of it. Witness our bombing of Kosovo--it actually made things much worse for the Kosovars. With countries like Russia still possessing many nuclear weapons, foreign policy desperately needs to get back on the agenda. Rich
Porter of Walla Walla, WA.: Reportedly, U.S. arms dealers profit handsomely from selling weapons to foreign countries, some which become our adversaries. Such purchases in turn help the arms-dealer lobbyists justify to Congress even more expensive weapons for America's own defense. What will the candidates do to halt this game? Ahmad
Shikara of Aukland, New Zealand: US Elections should focus more on issues of foreign policies. The US should play a constructive role to effect a change in Iraq. A U.N. operation for protecting human rights in Iraq is urgently needed. The US should provide military support to Iraqi opposition to unseat the evil regime of Saddam Hussein. Also the Middle East process has to be firmly activated and the need for ending the double standards by favoring Israel should end. Lee
Sorensen of Chicago, IL.: Why is the media not reporting the China spy story and its link to campaign donations in both 1992 and 1996. I think all candidates should be asking many questions about how and why China got sensitive US nuclear technology both through spying and through buying it from US Corporations with no intervention from our government. Another related issue is why the media is not reporting the facts to the American people. Someone needs to factually explain it without bias. Let us draw our own conclusions and then let's do something about it. Are there any American patriots today?? Richard
J. Harknett of Cincinnati, Oh.: Although voters tend to pay it scant attention, foreign policy is an area in which president's have tremendous power. Therefore, each candidate must articulate a clear sense of what their approach to foreign policy will be. As I wrote recently in the NY Times, the most significant change with the end of the cold war for US foreign policy was the loss of conceptual clarity. There was a clear strategic question: "how do you deal with Soviet Communism?" Containment of Soviet Communism was a filter that enabled diverse administrations to determine the important from the unimportant. Most of what we get from prospective candidates are laundry lists of concerns without coherence. Personally, I feel that this is because they have not framed the correct question. I would ask the essential question as follows: Given the US predominance in military and economic affairs in the world today, the key grand strategic question is: "How do you protect a lead?" If the newshour is seeking the views of some new faces in academia for a future roundtable, I would certainly like to expand on why this question is the correct one and how it should be answered. |
|||||||||||||||||||
