American foreign policy

The two times I have been to America people are kind of embarrassed by how Europeans react to President George W Bush. However, to my mind we have put on rose tinted spectacles when it comes to what the United States can achieve for the world – crucially forgetting that at all times the national self interest is, as for all nations, the first priority whoever is in charge and hopefully there is an overlap between that and the world.

On that note this article in this weeks The Economist caught my eye, which also contains a special report on the subject of foreign policy after Bush - enjoy:

American foreign policy

All change?

Whether it is Clinton, McCain or Obama, the world will still quarrel with America’s foreign policy

TO JUDGE by the polls, millions of people in America and around the world are gasping to see the back of George Bush. With his going, America can extract itself from a catastrophic war in the Middle East, stop its preaching and bullying, win back lost friends and rediscover its founders’ advice to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. Or so the millions hope. They had better prepare for a disappointment.

There are several ways in which the next president can indeed act fast to restore America’s world standing. But the list is short. The mere fact of not being Bush will bring a dividend of goodwill. On top of this, he or she should send out an early message that on some issues the change of guard will mean a change of heart. An America that closed Guantánamo, imposed a clear ban on any sort of torture (by the CIA as well as the army) and shut the CIA‘s secret prisons could once again claim to lead the free world by example and not just by military power. A new president should also say more forthrightly than Mr Bush ever dared that America means to co-operate in the fight against global warming, and will consider joining the International Criminal Court. Mr Bush’s cavalier rejection of the Kyoto protocol, and his hostility to the ICC, did much to antagonise the world even before the war in Iraq.

After the easy wins

All these would be welcome changes of substance and symbolism. But even this short list will throw up difficulties. Closing Guantánamo may require America to try the suspected terrorists it can build a case against but let the others go free—free, if nobody else takes them, on American soil. And although it is easy for a president to promise international co-operation on climate change, it is hard to make Congress enact laws that trample on vested interests, threaten to hamper growth or price Americans out of their huge cars. The Senate would not have ratified Kyoto even if Mr Bush had asked it to.

Besides, these “easy” early wins do not come close to encompassing the broad sweep of policy that the wider world wants the new broom to change. Millions of Europeans (including the faithful Brits) want America to stop playing world sheriff and submit to the same rules as everyone else under the United Nations. A billion or more Muslims want America to boot Israel out of the West Bank, if not dismantle the Jewish state altogether. Strong constituencies at home and abroad are impatient to see America quit Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just Russians who find America’s plans for missile defence in Europe provocative, or Iranians who say the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme reek of double standards. Most of the world sympathised with America after September 11th, but a large and prickly chunk of it now sees its war against terrorism as a war against Islam.

You have only to inspect this catalogue of things different parts of the world want America to do or to stop doing to see that the new president’s honeymoon will be short. No president can satisfy this great welling up of external demands.

And none, of course, should try. Showing a decent respect for the opinions of mankind does not mean competing in a global popularity contest at the expense of sound policy. Much of the next president’s foreign policy will, rightly, continue the present one. Its central aims will include preserving the NATO alliance, holding the line against nuclear proliferation, and undergirding the security of allies such as Japan, Taiwan and South Korea in Asia and Israel and the Gulf Arabs in the Middle East. America under a new president will need to adapt to the relentless rise of China without seeking refuge in a self-defeating protectionism, keep a weather eye on a newly obstreperous Russia and—yes—continue to seek out and fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

America has a tradition of bipartisanship in foreign policy. As our special report this week argues, Iraq makes this election different. For the Republicans, John McCain has said that America must finish the job even if it lasts a hundred years. Both Democrats promise to start withdrawing troops in early 2009. A stark choice, at first blush. But look beyond the hyperbole. Barack Obama promises to have most combat troops out within 16 months, but would leave some behind; and Hillary Clinton will commit herself only to 2013—if possible. Though many Democrats are angered by such wriggles, the candidates are wise not to box themselves into a corner on Iraq (as, alas, they almost have on NAFTA and free trade).

No matter where you stood in 2003, and we argued for the invasion, it is impossible to deny that the war in Iraq turned into a humanitarian calamity. Its fifth anniversary coincided with the loss of the 4,000th American soldier and a new outbreak of fighting. But the overall trend since the start of General David Petraeus’s “surge” last year has been positive. For a future president to decide now what to do in Iraq a year hence would be folly. However flawed the reasons for invading Iraq, the consequences of a premature exit could be worse, not just for America’s own standing in a region vital to its economic and security interests, but for the Iraqis too.

Much will stay the same

It is peculiar how often foreigners are surprised to learn that American presidents serve American interests, not those of the world at large. Often, these interests overlap. America and the rest of mankind will benefit alike from tackling climate change and from spreading democracy, free markets and a liberal trading system—and the peace on which such a system depends. A new president needs to make this case anew. But they do not always overlap. And in a world that is still Hobbesian, the country that is for now still the world’s sole superpower is going to continue to put its own interests first.

That is why Mr Bush’s promise of a “humble” foreign policy could not survive the extraordinary attack that fell on America on September 11th and sucked him into Afghanistan and Iraq. By the second term a chastened administration was once again seeing the value of working with allies when that is possible. But when it is not possible, America relies on itself. The instinct of the next president will be no different.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh – sentenced to death for debating women’s rights

Much has been sacrificed by the armed forces of America, the United Kingdom and others to give the people of Afghanistan a better future than the one the Taliban offered. However, six years on after the Taliban were over thrown it seems that hopes of freedom of expression, and the right to debate religion without threat or intimidation has not been won out right.

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has been sentenced by a religious court to death for downloading and circulating a tract that criticised interpreting that the Koran supported the suppression of women. He did this at his university where he is studying journalism. Despite the widespread international condemnation the Afghan Senate has rejected non Islamic views on the matter – and expressed that the secular supreme court should not intervene in the matter though constitutionally he has the right of appeal.

Aminuddin Muzafari, the first secretary of the houses of parliament, said: “People should realise that as we are representatives of an Islamic country therefore we can never tolerate insults to reverences of Islamic religion.”

I want us to support fellow secularists who risk so much to question as free thinkers the way we live our lives. It is draconian that anyone should fear for their lives from the State for expressing an opinion or even wanting a debate. Other journalists have been warned not to show solidarity for Sayed Pervez Kambaksh.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, much for our own self interest but also to remove a diabolical regime that threatened international security and human rights. In the case of Iraq I could not support the invasion on the false premise we were given, but on the other hand could support the over throw of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein – I just wanted public support for those reasons, not a misrepresentation of the threat he posed.

Now after six years my concern is that we have not far advanced the rule of law that protects the liberty of people from their governments. Of course the Afghan people have a right to their own constitution and the law that they wish to be governed by.

But they do not have the right to expect our troops to die to defend such a constitution, or protect such a government that would allow this punishment on it’s citizens for blasphemy. Either we help build a democratic regime through investment and the blood of our fellow citizens – if that help is not appreciated or the ruling government that holds sway does not appreciate these values we hold dear, then we have no moral obligation towards them.

They have become the enemies of reason, showing an intolerance that Al Qaeda wrought on an international stage. May the international community send a clear signal that in this case human rights matter – and the Afghan government can expect no favours should it allow this student’s execution.

How you can save Pervez

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh’s imminent execution is an affront to civilised values. It is not, however, a foregone conclusion. If enough international pressure is brought to bear on President Karzai’s government, his sentence may yet be overturned. Add your weight to the campaign by urging the Foreign Office to demand that his life be spared. Sign our e-petition at www.independent.co.uk/petition

All quotes from “The Independent” article can be found here.