Candidates' Internationalism

Tom Barry, Editor, Foreign Policy In Focus

A fascinating dichotomy exists between the major and minor presidential candidates. Both major candidates are squarely in the internationalist camp, while the minor ones are closer to the populist tradition of isolationism. There are, however, also striking differences between the internationalism of the two major candidates, and between the isolationism/nationalism of the two minor ones.

The internationalism of Bush surfaced publicly in May when George W. signaled his support for a continued U.S. military presence in Kosovo--in direct opposition to the isolationist wing of the Republican party that opposes most U.S. military operations unless they are directly tied to protecting concrete U.S. interests--that is, lives, property, and corporate profits. According to Bush, Congress should defer to the presidency on foreign policy--resisting protectionist and isolationist tendencies that have popular resonance--and support what he has called a policy of “decidedly American internationalism.”

Despite Bush’s own declarations supporting an internationalist foreign policy, Al Gore has warned that the inexperienced Bush would be held hostage by a Republican isolationist caucus in the Senate led by Trent Lott (who once boasted of his disinterest in international affairs, saying, “I’ve been to Europe once; I don’t have to go again.”). Gore himself is decidedly in the internationalist camp. President George Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the dangers of foreign entanglements has not been heeded by candidate Gore. Instead, he calls for the “strengthening and renewing of our key alliances” while also declaring “our willingness to use our strength to lead the world toward what is right and just."

Then there are Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, who reject the internationalism of what Buchanan calls the “Beltway Parties.” They are America Firsters, who reject free trade leanings of the major candidates, demand that the international financial agencies be abolished or reined in, assert that the World Trade Organization and existing trade agreements subvert local, state, and national sovereignties, and declare that U.S. foreign policy is beholden to globetrotting corporations. Nader’s American Firstism, which is almost exclusively focused on global economy issues, is rooted in his decades-long battle against the control of big corporations.

Buchanan, who has been associated with three administrations, also rails against what he calls “the gods of the Global Economy,” and, like Nader, speaks frequently about Chinese economic threat and the threat of cheap imports that are “dumped” into the U.S. market. But Buchanan’s isolationism is also evident when he is engaged in a broader foreign policy debate about U.S. national interests and national security. U.S. military involvement abroad should respond only to direct threats to U.S. national security. For that reason, in his acceptance speech at the conflicted Reform Party convention, Buchanan said he opposed the bombing of Kosovo and of Iraq. He asked who has murdered more Iraqi citizens: Saddam Hussein or Madeleine Albright, who defends a sanctions policy that has resulted in the deaths of as many as 500,000 Iraqi children. Buchanan says his isolationism is really just a call for independence: freedom from the multilateralism of the IMF, WTO, and UN that undermine our American sovereignty of our “sweet republic.”

Foreign policy themes remain on the periphery of the campaign, but the views of the major and minor candidates will, if converted to policy, have a major impact on the daily lives of Americans. Instructive in this regard is an investigative article by John Judis in this month’s issue of American Prospect that examines the “conservative internationalism” of Bush, Cheney, and their circle of advisers. In contrast to the liberal internationalism of the centrist Democrats led by Clinton and Gore that, in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, engages the U.S. around the world to foster American values like democracy and human rights (albeit often as a cover for extending U.S. imperial reach), the conservative internationalism of the Bush team defines U.S. national interests and national security as more closely linked to strategic assets. They have “narrowed the definition of America’s overseas interests to defending the property rights of American investors,” particularly those of the inner circle, such as those of the oil industry. Cheney, for example, opposed the use of sanctions against governments in oil-rich Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, and Burma. According to Judis, Cheney, when speaking at the American Petroleum Institute, attacked the Clinton administration for its “failure at the federal level to recognize the strategic asset of the oil and gas business.”

What’s lacking in the presidential campaign is a clear articulation of a new internationalism that includes the cautious approach of Buchanan to military interventionism, the stated commitment of Gore to multilateralism, and the dedication of Nader to the promotion of core international values such as labor rights.

This page was last modified on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 1:34 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.