US Republican Party Rejuvenates its Policies: Turning the Page of the Neoconservatives and of Bush and Cheney's Adventures
Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat - 05/09/08//
St. Paul (Missouri) - The discourse of Republicans who wish to break away from President Bush's policies are almost identical to that of the Democrats when they speak of dialogue as a means to resolve international crises, on the basis that the policy of diplomatic boycott, isolation, and refusing to talk has proved to be a failure. The main difference that distinguishes their presidential candidate John McCain from Democratic candidate Barack Obama, according to them, is that McCain will send his representatives to the dialogue table armed with his resolve and willingness to use military force in case the dialogue fails, in defense of US national interest and national security, and will thus be taken seriously.
Obama, on the other hand, will have a weak start because of the assumption and the impression of others that he is not serious about keeping the military option on the table, as he is, by his nature, not ready to use it. The other difference is that Republican discourse suggests the desire to regain trust in traditional US partnerships, both on the regional and international levels, but with a fresh start in the post-Iraq War and post-Bush phase that will preserve global leadership for the US. This is different from the Democrats' quest for new and expanded partnerships, aimed at forming a new world order that would determine the US's position and clear it of the reputation it has inherited from the neoconservatives and as a result of the adventures of President Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney. However, what remains in terms of common aspects in the stances of many Republicans and Democrats is nearly the outcome of US foreign policies in the last days of the current administration, especially towards Iran and the attempts to appease it, as it has almost become a desired common denominator for both parties. After a closer look at the stances of both sides over international and regional issues, their foreign policies seem very similar, and sometimes almost identical, with the difference that the president would be replaced by a woman were any misfortune to befall McCain during his stay at the White House.
This round of US elections remains unusually exciting because of the personalities of the presidential and vice presidential candidates. McCain came out with a surprise by selecting Sarah Palin as his Vice President, an adventure that may cost him or ensure him the presidency. The reason has nothing to do with the personal and family life of the governor of the state of Alaska, a mother of five who will become a grandmother once her pregnant daughter gives birth and marries her boyfriend. This issue would have upset the conservatives had Palin not firmly rejected abortion, even during her pregnancy when she was aware that she would give birth to a handicapped child. However, now that the choice is between abortion and giving birth out of wedlock, the conservatives have crawled to the middle ground and accepted premarital pregnancy, as for them abortion is an unforgivable sin. Although at first the news stirred what some branded a moral storm, Palin succeeded in passing the first test the conservatives subjected her to and headed to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (Missouri) to astonish the audience by her determination to be their new charmer.
Yet Palin continues to be tested, especially with respect to her lack of experience in international politics, foreign policy and global challenges, a matter which frightens many Republicans and independents who fear that this unprepared woman may become president, considering that McCain is 72 years old and has a history with cancer, not to mention the health problems he suffered while being held as a Prisoner of War and the torture he was subjected to in captivity.
The next test will be during the debate between Palin and seasoned Democratic candidate Joe Biden. The Republicans are wagering on Palin's ability either to provoke Biden into treating her with condescending anger, which will earn her the sympathy of women and him disgust at his style, or to provoke him into fearing such a result, forcing him to act against his nature and appear weak and on the retreat.
Concerning her training in complicated international issues, Palin will have around five weeks to prepare before the debate, sufficient time for such a situation if the candidate is clever, lucid and witty, qualities which Palin possesses according to the McCain team.
Additionally, the broad lines of foreign policy have been determined to the extent allowed by the phase of elections. In this respect, what the Republicans intend to do is highlight Obama's mistakes and turn the elections into a semi-referendum over his person. The main idea relies on frightening voters of him, focusing on his lack of experience and portraying him as a leftist liberal who surrounds himself with experts on Africa who have nothing to do with China, Russia and the Middle East, in addition to highlighting his blunders, such as saying that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
Since these elections, according to the Republicans' strategy, will be focused on Obama's qualifications and personality, McCain's team intends to skillfully and carefully maintain a balance between highlighting their candidate's recognition of the importance of holding on to the option of using force and his readiness to engage in dialogue and negotiations to find diplomatic solutions.
The Republican Party's political platform addresses the issue of dialogue with Iran by saying "We oppose entering into a presidential-level, unconditional dialogue with the regime in Iran until it takes steps to improve its behavior, particularly with respect to the support of terrorism and suspension of its efforts to enrich uranium. At the same time, the U.S. must retain all options in dealing with a situation that gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the safety of our friends."
The platform also speaks of Iran as a "rogue state" whose "leadership supports terror, threatens its neighbors, and provides weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq". It also firmly states that "the US government, in solidarity with the international community, will not allow the current regime in Tehran to develop nuclear weapons". The platform also speaks of increasing diplomatic pressures and sanctions "to persuade Iran's rulers to halt their drive for a nuclear weapons capability". In any event, it is the absolute commitment not to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons under any circumstances that remains the most prominent aspect of this platform.
A source close to McCain says that the Republican candidate wants the "grand dialogue" with Iran, at the level of experts, to explore the possibilities of reaching grand agreements. Nevertheless, the issue on which there will be no negotiations is the absolute rejection of Iran's possession of nuclear weapons.
According to this source, the option of dialogue and engagement does not at all mean that it will be an open-ended dialogue, nor does it mean reaching any form of agreement. The source also adds that McCain intends to send to the dialogue table an envoy armed with decisiveness, determination, and the strength of potential use of force. The objective of dialogue is not retreat, according to McCain's people, but rather to explore Iran's thoughts and intentions, as well as the margins of maneuvering or agreement, and the availability of common grounds.
However, there are those in the McCain camp who refuse to allow for dialogue, for fear that it may turn into a tool for maneuvering, stalling, and drowning in the arts of Iranian-style negotiation.
Similarly, with respect to Syria, there are several views within McCain's inner circle, and it is not clear which will prevail. At a certain level, there is willingness among some to assign Israel to initiate dialogue, reach an understanding and conclude deals with Syria, even if this were to come at the expense of Lebanon, the Palestinians or both. What matters for those people is creating stability, not creating justice. In their view, the battle between peace and international justice tribunals should start with the question: which will serve stability and which will undermine it? If justice could harm stability, it can be "delayed" or "suspended" without however giving up on it entirely.
This does not mean that McCain has finalized his position regarding dialogue with Syria or that he agrees to hand over Syria's file to Israel. After all, he has vowed to support Lebanon's sovereignty and independence and the full implementation of UN resolutions regarding Lebanon. He has also taken public stances of holding on to the international tribunal for political assassinations in Lebanon.
With respect to Israel, there is no doubt that the Republicans are absolutely committed to supporting it, in addition to their usual bias against the Palestinians. However, there are those who point to the fact that McCain may be in the White House for one only term as a result of his old age, and that he may hence be more daring in making peace, especially as he is known for making brave and unusual decisions.
The racism of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, who failed to become the Republican presidential candidate, does not reflect consensus within the Republican Party over the party's political platform, which spoke of a peace process involving "mutual commitment" to resolve all issues through negotiations and that "there should be as part of this process a fair and realistic framework in dealing with the issue of Palestinian refugees". Such discourse is a novelty in the party's platform, especially in speaking of a "just solution".
Furthermore, while Giuliani, in his speech at the convention, spoke of "Islamic terrorism" in a provocative and generally hateful manner, the party's platform mentioned "our appreciation for the loyalty of all American families with Middle Eastern roots. We recognize, with gratitude and esteem, the service of Arab and Muslim Americans, especially in the armed forces and in the intelligence community".
Giuliani's attitude is certainly present among Republicans but there are also opposing attitudes, especially with respect to breaking away from the Bush administration. The fact that Bush 43, as Bush Junior is referred to, was not mentioned in the speeches at the convention was noteworthy, as there seems to be a kind of acknowledgment that this hated president has become a harmful burden for the Republican Party, which seeks to keep the presidency. Hence, some of them spoke of the mistakes of the Bush administration as Democrats do. For example, the Bush administration's current policy towards Russia was criticized as "offensive", as in the recognition of Kosovo's independence, and having arrogant "dictating" behavior "that offends the pride of Russia's leadership". This is in addition to the greater mistake, namely unilateralism and condescendence in the Iraq War. To this, some add what they consider a failure in using the appropriate influence when it comes to dealing with leaders such as Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, by applying the necessary pressure through the opportunities available in South Africa, or the handling of the Darfur and Sudan issues.
When addressing this issue, the tone of the Democratic Party's discourse subsides before that of the Republicans and enters into what one has dubbed the "energy security dialogue" with China, on the basis of dividing the de facto reality in Sudan, implementing what is known as the Danforth Agreement, which grants the south the right to vote over its independence in 2011. The south contains most of the oil coveted by China, as well as the keys to American influence. According to an authority on the Sudan issue, the intention is to provide the south with military and economic capabilities, and to establish a close relationship with it, with conclusive influence when dealing with China regarding its oil interests and its need to impose peace in Sudan on the basis of a new military and economic balance of power. In other words, the main idea is based on a dialogue that starts with recognizing China's legitimate oil interests, accompanied with a hidden cost for China in term of its stances towards Darfur and Sudan through empowering the south with military and economic infrastructure.
McCain's team speaks of bilateral and international relations with China, India, and Russia from a perspective of understanding and of avoiding the mistakes of the Bush administration by resorting to a language that reinforces partnership and collective action as a first option. Like the Democrats, they speak of regional partnerships with countries such as Turkey. They also speak of strengthening traditional partnerships with influential states in the region such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
However, what they are now doing has nothing to do with formulating foreign policy, as it is too early for this. Indeed, this is the phase of creating the presidency not creating policy, and the path is long and difficult.
The Republican Party Convention was not as exciting as the Democratic Party Convention, as it lacked the element of making history and the vitality of the newcomer. Moreover, those in charge of the convention deliberately gave it an image of modesty, in contrast to the Democratic Convention. Indeed, the Republicans want the American people to feel secure and comfortable with regard to their modernizing candidate, whom they are quite familiar with, in comparison with the Democratic newcomer, whom they are getting to know. They are certain that they too are making history, because, if they win, they will bring a woman to the White House for the first time.
|
