foreign policy and the 1996 presidential election

8/14/2019 foreign policy and the 1996 presidential election

1/44

ForeignPolicy

and the

1996PresidentialElection

U.S. F O R E I G N P O L I CYU.S. F O R E I G N P O L I CY

A G E N D AVOLUME 1 AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF THE UNITED STATES INFORMAT ION AGENCY NUMBER 14

Interviewswith

Brent Scowcroftand

Zbigniew Brzezinski

ForeignPolicy

and the

1996PresidentialElection

October 1996


2/44

IIIII

VOTE

!

2

U. S. F O R E I G N P O L I C Y

A G E N D A

Foreign Policy andthe 1996 Presidential Election

On November 5, 1996, millions of Americans will go to polling places throughout the

country to vote for their choice for the next President of the United States. The time for

Election Day, which is always the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, wasdesignated by the U.S. Congress in 1845.

Selecting the nations leader is one of the most important and complex processes in

representative government in the United States, and Americans will consider many

factors domestic and international as they decide who should be President for

the next four years.

What concerns are important to voters and what criteria do they use in choosing thePresident? This issue ofU.S. Foreign Policy Agenda takes a look at those questions and

attempts to put into context the relationship between foreign policy and U.S. presidential

campaigns. It offers an historical perspective of the impact of foreign policy in earlier

elections as well as assessments of the role it is playing in the current campaign.

In the Focus Section an historian, tracing presidential elections since 1952, describes the

durability of bipartisanship in U.S. foreign policy. In separate interviews two foreign policy

experts, who served as National Security Advisers to former Democratic and Republican

Presidents, discuss key foreign policy concerns of their respective parties. Other articles

explain the role of foreign policy advisers in the campaign, convention platforms as a

means to define political parties positions on foreign policy, and recent public opinion

polls and how they reflect voters concerns. Also included are foreign policy statements by

the Democratic, Republican and Reform Party nominees for President.

CCCC

CC

CCCC

CC

U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA USIA ELECTRONIC JOURNALS VOLUME 1 NUMBER 14 OCTOBER 1996


3/44

3

U.S. FO R E I G N P O L I CY

A G E N D AAn Electronic Journal of the

U. S. Information Agency

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

CONTENTS

_ FOCUS

FOREIGN POLICY AND ELECTIONS: THE DURABILITY OF BIPARTISANSHIP 5

By Professor Robert SchulzingerDepartment of History, University of Colorado in Boulder

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND TRADE: KEY THEMES FOR THE DEMOCRATS 8

An interview with Professor Zbigniew BrzezinskiCounselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

LEADERSHIP AND CONSISTENCY: KEY THEMES FOR THE REPUBLICANS 11

An interview with General Brent ScowcroftPresident of The Forum for International Policy and The Scowcroft Group

_ COMMENTARY

THE FOREIGN POLICY FACTOR IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS 14

By Stephen HessSenior Fellow in Governmental Studies, Brookings Institution

_ THE PROCESS AND THE PLAYERS

WHAT THE POLLS SAY: ISSUES OF CONCERN TO AMERICAN VOTERS 17

By Alvin Richman

THE ROLE OF FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS IN DOLE, CLINTON CAMPAIGNS 22

By Wendy S. Ross

PLATFORMS: HOW THE PARTIES DEFINE THEIR POLICY POSITIONS 25

By Ralph Dannheisser

_ IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE CANDIDATES VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BILL CLINTON 29

Forging a foreign policy that advances U.S. values

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BOB DOLE 33

A pledge to pursue terrorists to the ends of the earth

REFORM PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE ROSS PEROT 36

In pursuit of intelligent, free international trade


4/44

4

_ DEPARTMENTS

ELSEWHERE ON THE DIPLOMATIC SCENE 39

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

ACTION ON CAPITOL HILL 40

Chemical Weapons Convention, defense authorization, U.S. action in Iraq,U.N. command of U.S. troops, Iran/Libya sanctions

_ A GUIDE TO ADDITIONAL READING

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: KEY INTERNET SITES 42

Internet links to resources on foreign policy and the campaign

FOREIGN POLICY AND THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: BIBLIOGRAPHY 43

Spotlighting other views on the subject

ARTICLE ALERT: OTHER POLITICAL AND SECURITY ISSUES 44

Abstracts of current articles

USIAs electronic journals, published and transmitted worldwide at

two-week intervals, examine major issues facing the United States

and the international community. The journals EconomicPerspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy

Agenda, and U.S. Society and Values provide analysis, commentary,

and background information in their thematic areas. French and

Spanish language versions appear one week after the English. Theopinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or

policies of the U.S. Government. Articles may be reproduced and

translated outside the United States unless copyright restrictions are cited

on the articles.

Current or back issues of the journals can be found on the

U.S. Information Service (USIS) Home Page on the World Wide Web

at http://www.usia.gov/journals/journals.htm. They are available

in several electronic formats to facilitate viewing on-line, transferring,downloading and printing. Comments are welcome at your local

USIS post or at the editorial offices:

Editor, U.S. Foreign Policy AgendaPolitical Security - I/TPS

U.S. Information Agency

301 4th Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20547United States of America

[email protected]

Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith S. Siegel

Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia H. Kushlis

Managing Editor . . . . . . . . . . Dian McDonald

Associate Editors . . . . . . . . Wayne Hall

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guy Olson

Contributing Editors . . . . .Judy Aita

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hugo Bayona

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph Dannheisser

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim Kelman

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jason Kuznicki

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Margaret A. McKay

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacqui S. Porth

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wendy S. Ross

Reference Specialists . . . . . Samuel M. Anderson

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vivian StahlArt Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara Morgan

Graphics Assistant . . . . . . . Sylvia Scott

Editorial Assistant . . . . . . .Yvonne Shanks

Editorial Board . . . . . . . . . . Howard Cincotta

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith S. Siegel

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pamela H. Smith

U. S. F O R E I G N P O L I C Y

A G E N D A


5/44

5

Six of the eleven U.S. presidential elections sincethe Second World War have resulted in a change ofpolitical party in the White House. Three timesRepublicans turned out Democrats (1952, 1968and 1980), and three times Democrats replacedRepublicans (1960, 1976 and 1992). During eachof these campaigns, the winning candidatepromised a foreign policy vastly different from theone practiced by the current president of the otherparty. Once inaugurated, however, the successfulchallenger followed the contours of hispredecessors relations with other countries.Bipartisanship in foreign policy runs deep in theAmerican political culture.

The process began in the campaign of 1952 whenDwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican candidate,promised to go beyond the Trumanadministrations policy of containment of the

Soviet Union to roll back the gains made byCommunists in Eastern Europe and Asia. Yet soonafter he took office, Eisenhower ordered a majorreview of U.S. foreign policy which concluded thatthe focus of U.S. foreign policy should be the slow,patient containment of Soviet aggression. Duringhis second term, Eisenhower set out on an evenmore moderate course, as he pursued detente witha new generation of Soviet leaders.

What Eisenhower considered to be prudent movestoward relaxation of superpower tension,prominent Democrats seeking their partyspresidential nomination in 1960 belittled asdangerous disregard of the nations defenses. Oneof them, John F. Kennedy, made rebuilding thenations military might and assertive competitionwith the Soviet Union the centerpiece of hisforeign policy agenda in his successful bid for thepresidency. In his first 21 months in office,Kennedy did confront Communist states andrevolutionary movements, especially those in thedeveloping world, more vigorously thanEisenhower had done in 1959 and 1960. But,after approaching the brink of war during theCuban missile crisis of October 1962, Kennedydramatically expanded Eisenhowers earlier effortsat reducing the danger of nuclear war between theUnited States and the Soviet Union.

When Republican Richard Nixon won thepresidency in 1968 over Democrat HubertHumphrey, Nixon promised to bring peace withhonor to the terribly divisive war in Vietnam.Humphrey lost the election by barely one half ofone percentage point, because, in the end, notenough Americans believed that he had distancedhimself sufficiently from the highly unpopular

FOREIGN POLICY AND ELECTIONS:THE DURABILITY OF BIPARTISANSHIP

By Robert D. Schulzinger

_ F O C U S

Bipartisanship in foreign policy runs deep in the American political culture, contends the author.Tracing U.S. presidential elections since 1952, he describes how successful contenders for the presidency

have followed the contours of their predecessors in dealing with other nations.During the Cold War both Democratic and Republican administrations advocated containment of theSoviet Union and avoidance of world war, and after 1989 they kept the United States deeply involved

in world affairs, he writes. Schulzinger is a Professor of History at the University of Colorado in Boulder.He was Staff Consultant to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and now serves

as a member of the U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on Historical Publications.His books includeAmerican Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century,

Present Tense: The United States since 1945, Henry Kissinger: Doctor of Diplomacy, andThe Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations.


6/44

Vietnam war policy of President Lyndon B.Johnson. Yet when Nixon became President, headopted a policy developed by the Johnsonadministration, Vietnamization letting theSouth Vietnamese handle more of the fighting.

Nixon and Henry Kissinger, his principal foreignaffairs adviser and Secretary of State, gained widepublic approval for advancing detente with theSoviet Union, opening frozen relations with thePeoples Republic of China, and starting down theroad toward peace between Arabs and Israelis. Allof these initiatives had roots in plans devisedduring the Johnson administration.

By 1976 the luster of Kissingers foreign policy haddimmed. Democrat Jimmy Carter won the

presidency that year in part with attacks onKissingers high-handed indifference to abuses ofhuman rights abroad and his preoccupation withU.S.-Soviet relations. In 1977 and 1978 theCarter administration did pay more attention torelations between the developed and developingworlds, but in 1979 and 1980 the United Statesfocused once again on the growing tensionsbetween it and the Soviet Union. The Sovietinvasion of Afghanistan of December 1979profoundly shocked Americans. In the last year ofhis presidency Carter had called for the largestdefense buildup in 20 years. But Cartersrediscovery of a threat from the Soviet Unioncould not save him from defeat at the hands ofRepublican candidate Ronald Reagan who came tooffice in 1981 on the most militantly anti-Sovietplatform of any candidate since 1952. In practice,however, Reagan confirmed the pattern of aPresident following the broad outline of hispredecessors foreign policies. The defense buildupof Reagans first term fulfilled the plans of Cartersfinal defense requests. In his second term Reagan,who had once derided detente as promising thepeace of the grave, became the most enthusiasticproponent of reducing tensions between theUnited States and the Soviet Union.

When someone asked Reagan on his visit toMoscow in 1988 why he had dropped his harshanti-Soviet rhetoric, he replied, Theyve changed.Indeed they had. By the end of 1991 the Soviet

Union had crumbled internally and ceased to exist.The Cold War, which had provided the focal pointof American foreign policy for four decades, endedtwo years earlier at the beginning of the presidencyof Republican George Bush. In the post-Cold War

era, Bush won high praise for his foreign policyskills, especially in assembling the multinationalcoalition that expelled Iraqi troops from Kuwait in1991.

Foreign policy became a distinctly secondary issueduring the election campaign of 1992. Yet thevictor, Democrat Bill Clinton, while he focusedmost of his criticism of Bush on his poorstewardship of the nations economy, also promiseda different direction in foreign policy. Clinton

assailed Bushs indifference to human rights abusesin China, his reluctance to intervene militarily inthe war in Bosnia, and his apparent hostility torefugees fleeing repression in Haiti. In office,however, Clinton, like earlier presidents, differedfar less sharply in foreign affairs from thepredecessor he had ousted than his campaignrhetoric had indicated. Like Bush, Clinton triedto maintain cordial political and commercialrelations with the PRC, despite Chinas humanrights violations. Clinton quickly decided againstentering the fight in Bosnia. His administrationdid, however, successfully broker a peaceagreement among the warring Bosnian factions in1995. On Haiti, as well, Clinton initially followedthe Bush administrations policy he hadcondemned of returning refugees to theirhomeland. In 1994 the Clinton administrationacted more forcefully to restore Democratic rule toHaiti.

In the midst of the 1996 election the Republicanchallenger Bob Dole has criticized Clintonsforeign policy approach for lacking coherence,excessive reliance on the United Nations andunwillingness to use military force appropriately.As a Senator, however, Dole supported Clintonsdeployment of U.S. forces to Bosnia in late 1995.When the Clinton administration launched cruisemissiles against Iraq in retaliation for that countrysattack on Kurdish cities in September 1996, Dolesupported the military strike.

6


7/44

However much presidential candidates in the post-World War II era may have accentuated thedifferences between their foreign policy positionsand those of their opponents, both Democraticand Republican administrations during and after

the Cold War have pursued remarkably similarforeign policies. During the Cold War theyadvocated containment of the Soviet Union andavoidance of world war, and after 1989 they keptthe United States deeply involved in world affairs.

American voters also will elect a new Congress in1996. The Republicans may keep their currentmajorities in both the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives, or the Democrats may retake oneor both chambers. But regardless of which party

controls Congress, the experience of the post-ColdWar era suggests continuation of bipartisanship inU.S. foreign policy. For 22 of the past 50 years asingle party controlled the presidency and bothhouses of Congress at the same time; for 22 yearsone party held the presidency and the other hadmajorities in both houses of Congress; and for sixyears, the two parties divided control overCongress.

Congress and the President have often differedover foreign policy. Yet what is striking about thedisagreements is that they are not as much betweenparties as they are over particular issues. Forexample, the Democratic Truman administrationhad the support of a Republican Congress in 1947and 1948 in creating the Marshall Plan andpromulgating the Truman Doctrine. The

Democratic Johnson administration, on the otherhand, was assailed by Democratic members ofCongress over the Vietnam war.

When Democrats controlled Congress in 1993

and 1994, the Clinton administration certainlyenjoyed more support from lawmakers over foreignpolicy issues than it did during the RepublicanCongress of 1995 and 1996. But the last two yearsshow that the experience of governing tempers themore extreme positions taken during the heat of anelection campaign. When the Republicansorganized Congress in 1995, they seemed poisedto eliminate foreign affairs agencies, slash foreignassistance and hamstring the Clintonadministrations trade and human rights policies.

In 1996, however, Republican lawmakers lookedfor common ground with the Clintonadministration on foreign policy.

Since the end of the Cold War a broad consensushas existed within the United States about thenations foreign policy. Recent public opinionsurveys indicate that, despite disagreements overstyle and details, most Americans believe it is vitalfor the United States to remain deeply engaged inthe world. They believe it is necessary to havefriends and allies in a still dangerous environment.They think that military force still is an importantelement in world affairs. They want the UnitedStates to promote democracy, human rights, freemarkets and free trade. The experience of the past50 years suggests that either a second Clintonadministration or a new Dole presidency willpursue these basic foreign policies. _

7



8/44

8

QUESTION: In your view, how much of a role isforeign policy playing in the current presidentialcampaign?

BRZEZINSKI: I do not believe that foreign policy isplaying a major role in the current presidentialcampaign. That campaign has focusedpredominantly on domestic issues. Moreover, atthe present time, with the exception of the Iraqiproblem, there are no major crises that arecapturing public attention and galvanizing agenuine interest in foreign policy.

Q:Are there any foreign policy issues that couldinfluence the outcome of the election?

BRZEZINSKI: There are some issues that couldinfluence, but clearly not determine, the outcomeof the election. Two in particular come to mind.The first of these pertains to the Middle East.

That issue because of the problem with Iraq,because of the relatively recent memory of thePersian Gulf War and because of the intenseinterest of many Americans in the future of Israel could affect the voting patterns in someportions of the United States.

The second issue pertains to NATO expansion.That problem is of special concern, particularly to

those Americans who are of Central Europeanorigin.

The stances adopted by the respective candidateson these two issues could, to some extent,influence the voting patterns of some key religiousand ethnic constituencies.

Q: Do you see basic philosophical differencesbetween Republicans and Democrats on foreignpolicy issues?

BRZEZINSKI: The Democrats, in a vague sort of away, are more inclined to emphasizemultilateralism, international cooperation,ecological concerns and so forth. In brief, if onewished to be sarcastic, one could call it the DoGooders Agenda. In contrast, Republicans aremore interested in questions of power, militaryreadiness, and national use of force. Again, to

simplify, you could call it the SchwarzeneggerAgenda.

I have to emphasize, however, that these are onlymarginal differences. And there is no fundamentalphilosophical collision between Republicans andDemocrats today, in part because there are nomajor international crises which create significantdividing lines.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND TRADE: KEY THEMESFOR THE DEMOCRATS

An interview with Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski

While foreign policy is not playing a major role in the presidential campaign,says Professor Zbigniew Brzezinksi, the Middle East and NATO expansion are two issues that

could influence, but clearly not determine, the outcome of the election. Although there are onlymarginal differences between Republicans and Democrats on foreign policy, he contends,

Democrats are more inclined to emphasize trade, international cooperation and ecological concerns.Brzezinski was National Security Adviser to President Carter and formerly served on

the faculties of Harvard and Columbia Universities. He is now Counselor at the Center for Strategic andInternational Studies and also Professor of American Foreign Policy

at the School of Advanced International Studies, the Johns Hopkins University in Washington.He was interviewed in September by Contributing Editor Wendy S. Ross.


9/44

Q:What foreign policy issues are of keyimportance to the Democratic Party at this time?

BRZEZINSKI: In addition to the ones that I have

mentioned, I would place trade high on the listbecause it affects working patterns in the UnitedStates, it has special significance to American labor,and it is related to the theme of prosperity. Trade isan area where the Clinton administration can showmajor accomplishments.

Q:What do you think is the most significant areaof disagreement on foreign policy between the twopresidential candidates?

BRZEZINSKI:

I have to emphasize again that thereare no fundamental disagreements, only marginaldisagreements. The Republicans have beenadvocating, for example, a somewhat more robustresponse to the recent Iraqi challenge. TheRepublicans have gone on record as being in favorof a somewhat earlier date for NATO expansionthan has been implied so far by the Democraticcandidate.

There has been criticism by the Republicans of theDemocratic handling of the China issue. TheRepublicans have been inclined to stress thehuman rights dimension. However, on that issue,the Republicans themselves are in disagreementbecause the business community, to the extent thatit may lean somewhat toward the Republicancandidate, is not interested in elevating the humanrights issue into a major concern in the American-Chinese relationship.

Q: Some Republicans are saying that the recentU.S. air strikes in Iraq were conducted for political

reasons during this election year. How do youanswer such accusations?

BRZEZINSKI: I really dont think that is necessarilyeven an accusation. During an election yearobviously the chief decision-makers who areguided by the national interest cannot entirelydisregard the political consequences of foreignpolicy decisions. It so happens, actually, that on

Iraq, what the President did, the Republicans havegenerally supported, but then they have gone on tosay that more ought to be done.

Q: Do you think politics played a significant role

in recent weeks on foreign policy issues in theCongress for example, the Senate decision topostpone action on the Chemical WeaponsConvention?

BRZEZINSKI: The postponement of the ChemicalWeapons Convention was a political decision, andthe effort to get it approved was also a politicaldecision. In that sense, both sides were playing thepolitical game, and each was calculating that anegative outcome for the other side would be more

damaging to the other side in terms of domesticpolitics. The reason for the postponement wasthat the Republicans did not want to go on recordas opposing it, but at the same time, they were ofthe view that the Chemical Weapons Conventionwas not going to be very effective, and that it wassimply one more treaty stating general wishes butwithout any teeth in it.

Q:And the view of the Clinton administration onthe Chemical Weapons Convention?

BRZEZINSKI: The Clinton administration said itwas nonetheless a step toward some internationalorder not foolproof, but a forward step,nonetheless, toward greater internationalcooperation on containing the proliferation ofchemical weapons.

Those were the arguments that were being madeon the merits of the issue. But behind it, on bothsides, there was a political calculation. TheDemocrats hoped the Republicans would be

embarrassed into appearing, somehow or other, tofavor chemical weapons, and the Republicanshoped that the Democrats would look like wishfulthinkers.

Q: Do you believe that both major political partiescould do a better job in handling foreign policyissues during presidential campaigns?

9


10/44

BRZEZINSKI: It is easy to answer this question.The answer is obviously yes. The truth of thematter is that foreign policy issues have not beenhandled in a serious and responsible fashion in thecourse of this election and, unfortunately, in the

course of most recent elections. I would hope that,for example, it could be and in my view shouldbe possible to devote one full presidentialdebate to a discussion of foreign policy andnothing else. I would hope it would be possible tostage serious debates between the respectivecandidates associates that deal with foreign policyissues. Such events would help to enlighten thepublic regarding foreign policy matters and wouldcrystallize, perhaps, some sharper definition ofalternative approaches to foreign policy issues.

Q: How would you assess the American publicsknowledge of and interest in foreign affairs?

BRZEZINSKI: I have to say that, on the whole, itsrelatively low. The American public has very littleknowledge of foreign history, abysmal knowledgeof foreign geography, and a relatively low level ofinterest in foreign affairs. I believe this is the resultof continental isolation, of some educationalinadequacies, but also of the American massmedias lack of serious focus on foreign policy.

I was struck by this in August when I was awayfrom Washington and was listening to the CBSRadio morning news, which is called the CBSWorld News Roundup. There was literallynothing but a compendium of absolutely trivialstories, almost all of them exclusively involvingdomestic affairs; even though the 8 a.m. broadcastwas called World News Roundup, it had literallyno world news. The same was true again on theevening news. In the place I was located I could

only get the CBS TV evening news, which alsopretends to be world news. But in fact there wasno serious coverage of any major internationalissue.

American newspapers, even major national papers,increasingly place international news on the backpages. The fact of the matter is that America ismuch more preoccupied with itself. And thoseinstitutions, organizations, which could, and, inmy view, should somewhat widen the perspectivesof the American public, are failing abysmally intheir job.

Q:What role did foreign policy play in the 1976and 1980 presidential campaigns? Do you think

the Iranian hostage crisis was in part responsiblefor Carters failure to be re-elected in 1980?

BRZEZINSKI: I think in 1976 foreign policy playeda role on two levels. One, the Nixon-Ford detentepolicy was criticized by the Democrats asinadequately sensitive to human rights. Andsecondly, in the course of the presidential debate,President Ford made a statement about EasternEurope which seemed to imply that, in his view,satellite Communist Poland was a fullyindependent state. That was quite naturally seizedupon by the Democrats and exploited in apolitically effective fashion.

In 1980, the Iranian hostage crisis certainlycontributed to the defeat of the Democraticadministration. The Democratic administrationwas perceived as incompetent, indecisive and weakand simply unable to deal with a protractednational humiliation. The Republicans certainlymade these points and they were able to scoresignificant political points thereby. _

10



11/44

11

QUESTION: How would you characterize the roleof foreign policy in the current presidentialcampaign?

SCOWCROFT: I would say it is probably asminimal as any that I can remember. It isepisodically raised, but it is not a major theme inthe campaign.

Q: Do you think that there are any foreign policyissues that could have a potential impact on theoutcome of the election at this point?

SCOWCROFT: I think not unless dramatic eventstake place that would have an impact. But barringthat, I dont think so. Foreign policy will be anundertone to the campaign. And I think PresidentClinton will generally say he has been a good

president in foreign policy, he has continued thetradition of American foreign policy, and he hasbeen strong and not shied from the use of forcewhen it was appropriate.

And Senator Dole is likely to say, Theres been noleadership. Our policy has been one change afteranother. Theres been no consistency, no strategy.We need to have a consistent foreign policy, and

we need one backed by strength, and the Presidenthas let our military erode.

It seems to me that will be an underlying theme,but thats not going to change many voters minds.Now, should something dramatic happen, likesomething else in Iraq, like something with Chinaand missile proliferation and so on, that couldhave an impact on the election. But that would bean unanticipated event.

Q: U.S. policy toward illegal immigrants has beendescribed as the most contentious foreign policyissue for President Clinton and Senator Dole. Doyou agree with that assessment?

SCOWCROFT: I think its a very emotional issue.But that sounds too strong to me. In the first

place, I would question whether thats really aforeign policy issue. Thats a domestic policy issue.And it has great resonance in a few very key states,like California, Texas and Florida. But in most ofthe country, I think its a more abstract issue, andtherefore wont affect too many votes.

Q: Do you think it could be a big factor in howCalifornia votes?

LEADERSHIP AND CONSISTENCY:KEY THEMES FOR THE REPUBLICANS

An interview with General Brent Scowcroft

The role of foreign policy in the current presidential campaign is minimal and is not expected to havea major impact on the way Americans vote unless unanticipated dramatic events take place

on the world scene before election day, says General Brent Scowcroft. Leadership and consistency arekey foreign policy themes for the Republican Party at this time, he says. Scowcroft was Assistant to the President

for National Security Affairs during the administrations of Presidents Ford and Bush.He also served as Military Assistant to President Nixon. During his military career, Scowcroft held positions

in the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force,and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He is founder

and President of The Forum for International Policy, a non-partisan, non-profit organizationproviding independent perspectives on major foreign policy issues; he is also President of The Scowcroft Group,

a consulting firm aiding corporations engaged in international expansion and investment.Scowcroft was interviewed in September by Managing Editor Dian McDonald.


12/44

12

SCOWCROFT:Yes, I think it could. But there, asyou know, the split is not necessarily by party. ButI think it is more likely to be a defining issue inCalifornia than any other place; and perhaps,second, in Florida.

Q:What foreign policy issues are of keyimportance to the Republican Party at this time?

SCOWCROFT:While there are some specific issues,such as Bosnia and Haiti, I think the general issuesof leadership and consistency are the themes thatthe Republicans would emphasize.

Q: How do you view the role and character ofsecurity policy in the elections now that the Cold

War is history?

SCOWCROFT: The elections during the Cold Warwere frequently the subject of debates about whowas soft on Communism, who didnt keep ourmilitary strength up and so on and so forth. Thoseissues have gone away. And with the end of theCold War, I think, by and large, the Americanpeople are not particularly interested in foreignpolicy at the moment. And, therefore, as thedifferent campaign chairmen look at the issueswhich will excite the people, they are not likely tofind one in foreign policy, because there isntanything that excites people like the issue of thethreat from an aggressive Soviet Union did.

Q: Do you see a basic philosophical differencebetween Republicans and Democrats on foreignpolicy issues?

SCOWCROFT:Yes, I think there are generaldifferences between Republicans and Democrats.But you know its a little harder to make that

distinction because there are different kinds ofDemocrats and different kinds of Republicans.But to the extent one can make that distinction, Iwould say that the difference is two-fold. One isthe degree to which military strength needs to playa role in foreign policy: How strong do we need tobe militarily in comparison to our economy? Andthe other is really the degree to which issues ofhuman rights and democracy come to be

operational elements of the foreign policy. Thereare elements of principle for both parties. But theDemocrats tend to make them more operational interms of what our foreign policy should be thanthe Republicans.

Lets take China, for example. The Democratshave tended to say, The most important thingwith respect to U.S.-Chinese relations is theirhuman rights record, and we have to punish themuntil they get their human rights record straight.

Republicans tend to say, China is a great power.We have a lot of interests with China a lot ofvery important interests, among which is humanrights. But it should not dominate the

relationship.

Q: Do you think that the Republicans are nowreluctant during this campaign to criticizePresident Clintons foreign policy record?

SCOWCROFT: No, I dont think they are reluctantat all. Indeed, I think theres some tendency to doit, especially in terms of leadership. But foreignpolicy, as I said before, will not be a primary themebecause it doesnt seem to resonate with theAmerican voter.

Q: Could you briefly summarize President Bushskey foreign policy successes, and do you believe theAmerican voter lost sight of those achievementsduring the 1992 presidential campaign?

SCOWCROFT: I think there were a couple of majorachievements. The overwhelming one was the endof the Cold War. Now George Bush did not causethe end of the Cold War. Those were elements farbeyond any particular individual. But the fact that

a confrontation as deep and bitter as that whichmotivated the Cold War was able to end in soshort a period of time, without a shot being fired,is, I think, little short of amazing. And I think thefact that it was managed in a way which ended itwith a whimper if you will rather than witha nuclear boom, was a particular achievement ofGeorge Bush. Subsidiary to that was his ability toget the Soviet Union to accept not only the


13/44

reunification of Germany, but a reunificationwithin NATO.

The other achievement which I think most peoplewill remember George Bush for right now is the

conflict in the Persian Gulf. And there, I think, hedid a tremendous job, in the sense that herecognized aggression, he mobilized a coalition todeal with the aggression, to reverse the aggression;he mobilized the world community through theUnited Nations to condemn it and to approve theaction to reverse it. And then having achieved hisobjectives, he ended it. And I think it is as pure acase of how to deal with unprovoked aggression aswe have ever had.

And do I believe that the American voter somehowlost sight of those achievements in 1992?

I think a couple of things. The end of the ColdWar from the perspective of the Americanpeople happened so effortlessly that it lookedsort of inevitable and nobody paid much attentionto how much effort it took to have it end the wayit did. He got an enormous amount of credit forthe Gulf War. Indeed, his popularity got up toabout 90 percent. But I think that peoplesmemory is short, that there was a domesticmalaise, economically, and that then-GovernorClinton was successful in saying, Our realproblems are here at home, and we have aPresident who spends too much time on foreignpolicy.

Q: Do you believe that the Republicans and/orDemocrats could do a better job of handlingforeign policy issues during presidentialcampaigns? And, if so, what advice could youoffer to improve the treatment of foreign policy inU.S. elections?

SCOWCROFT: Thats a difficult question to answer.I think to the extent that it is possible foreign policy should be treated on its merits in acampaign. But thats a very difficult thing to

suggest. So far, the parties when crises havearisen during a campaign have closed ranks andacted in unison.

I think foreign policy should be debated as a

campaign issue, but hopefully it should be debatedon the merits of what it is we are trying toaccomplish and how well we are doing it, ratherthan on personalities. But I dont have much hopethat that will be the case.

Q: In view of your current involvement with TheForum for International Policy and The ScowcroftGroup, could you comment further on theAmerican publics knowledge of and interest inforeign affairs? How can this be changed and what

would you recommend to heighten Americansinterest in international issues?

SCOWCROFT: I think that the current knowledgeis relatively low, and lower than it was during mostparts of the Cold War period. And I think that isbecause traditionally the American people havebeen rather insular, and foreign policy has beensomething so far away across two great oceans andnot something of daily concern to their lives. Ithink this is a period when we are likely either toconstruct or lay the foundation for a world morecompatible with our values, or let the world onceagain drift into a state of peril from which we mayhave to rescue it as has happened so often in thiscentury.

There are a lot of people who can help in gettingthe message out and The Forum for InternationalPolicy is one which is trying to do that. But in theend, its a particular responsibility of an AmericanPresident, both to keep saying how important it isand why its important and to do the kinds of

things that will advance our interests.

Again, in peace time, the American people sort ofrely on the President to do whats right. And theygive him a lot of leeway. So I think presidentialleadership is really the key. _

13



14/44

14

On the first Sunday in September, as the Presidentwas ordering cruise missiles fired at Iraq, RobertDole assailed Bill Clintons weak leadership indealing with Saddam Hussein. The next day, afterthe missiles landed, the Republican presidentialcandidate concluded that attacking his Democraticopponent was a mistake and offered supportwithout hesitation or reservation to theAmerican military forces. The Reform Partys RossPerot refused to rally behind the President,however, saying, War is not a place for politiciansto create a positive image and get a bump in thepolls. Amazingly, once again foreign policy hasbecome an issue in an American presidentialcontest.

Amazing because of the inward-direction of U.S.voters and the fact that most elections aredetermined by domestic considerations, notably bythe state of the economy. When Clintons 1992campaign manager, James Carville, warned staff

meetings that Its the economy, stupid hiscolorful way of alerting campaign workers not tostray from their basic message he was simplyreiterating a truism of American politics.

Clinton did give several obligatory foreign policyspeeches, generally focusing on the importance ofworld trade. But he was able to steer the debateaway from overseas matters, which have been the

Republicans strong suit, first under RonaldReagan, the partys nominee in 1980 and 1984,who often appeared to be running for officeagainst the Soviet Union, and then under GeorgeBush, whose approval rating shot up to 90 percentafter the Persian Gulf War.

There are various ways that foreign policy andnational security issues work their way into thelargely domestic terrain of American presidentialpolitics.

Obviously the first way is when a crisis imposesitself during the election period, as in the case ofIraqs military incursion into a Kurdish-protectedarea this year. The 1956 campaign betweenDwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson wascomplicated by two international crises, theHungarian uprising and the Israeli-French-Britishinvasion of Egypt. All out-party candidates worryabout such so-called October surprises, when thenation is reminded that the in-party candidate alsomay be the commander-in-chief and the nationtends to rally round the flag.

Second: When an international issue becomesdomesticated because it directly involves U.S.citizens, either as troops or as hostages. The mostrecent examples are the Korean War, the VietnamWar, and the 1979 Iranian takeover of the

THE FOREIGN POLICY FACTOR IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNSBy Stephen Hess

_ C O M M E N T A R Y

Describing instances in which foreign policy works its way into the largely domestic terrain ofU.S. presidential politics, Hess says it can happen when a crisis imposes itself during an election period or

when an international issue becomes domesticated because it directly involves U.S. citizens,either as troops or as hostages. While the electorate has less knowledge of foreign relations

than of domestic affairs, he says, it is clear that on the international issues that voters do care about,they care very deeply indeed. Since 1972 Hess has been a Senior Fellow in Governmental Studies

at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He was a speech writer for President Eisenhower,Deputy Assistant to President Nixon for Urban Affairs and consultant to President Carter

for Executive Office reorganization. He is the author of 15 books includingThe Presidential Campaign,Organizing the Presidency, andPresidents and the Presidency.


15/44

American Embassy, events that had a major impacton the election of Eisenhower (1952), LyndonJohnson choosing not to run again (1968), thereelection of Richard Nixon (1972), and the defeatof Jimmy Carter (1980).

Third: An error on the part of a candidate, such asbefell President Gerald Ford and Senator BarryGoldwater. Ford misspoke about Sovietdomination of Eastern Europe when debatingCarter in 1976; Goldwater, the Republicannominee in 1964, gave an uncalled for explanationabout nuclear defoliation in Vietnam, whichcreated an image of the candidate as a nuclearbomber.

Fourth: Candidates know that certain countrieshave special meaning to different groups ofAmericans. Doles proposal to move the U.S.Embassy to Jerusalem by May 1999 appeals toJewish-Americans, while Clintons intervention inthe Ulster peace process is well received amongIrish-Americans. U.S. relations with Castros Cubahave an impact in Florida, a state with a largenumber of electoral votes, just as immigrationissues have special meaning in states that borderMexico.

Fifth: Candidates sometimes raise foreign policymatters because of their past experiences andinterests. A number of presidential contendershave served on the Senate Foreign Relations orArmed Services Committees. George Bush wasthe U.S. Ambassador to China, U.S.Representative to the United Nations, andDirector of the Central Intelligence Agency.Dole who urged delaying the Bosnia elections,claiming these elections will be a fraud, but afraud with the American stamp of approval has held long-standing and strong views on theconflict in the former Yugoslavia.

Sixth: Candidates are committed to positionsthrough their parties platforms. Comparativelythere are real differences in these documents thathelp define why voters are attracted to theRepublicans, Democrats, or one of the minorparties. In the 1996 platforms, for example, the

Republicans pledge to reverse the decline in whatour nation spends for defense and the Democratsargue that the Republicans desire to spend moremoney on defense than the Pentagon requests.(The Reform Partys platform does not deal with

international relations.)

Any explanation of the important role that foreignpolicy has played in electoral politics must betempered by serious reservations: The UnitedStates does not witness responsible debate onforeign policy during presidential campaigns;American voters are not knowledgeable aboutforeign policy issues; and the electorates interest inforeign policy does not go beyond a basic desire forpeace.

Foreign policy as a matrix of campaign issues boilsdown to who is most apt to get or keep thecountry out of war. Highly technical matters suchas international finance or even explosive situationsthat are unlikely to involve the American militaryare not the stuff on which electoral mandates areconstructed. Candidates appeals are basic, evenprimitive. I have said this before, but I shall sayit again and again and again: Your boys are notgoing to be sent into any foreign wars, saidFranklin Roosevelt in 1940.

Given, however, that the electorate has less interestin and less knowledge of foreign relations than ofdomestic affairs, it is clear that on the internationalissues that voters do care about, they care verydeeply indeed. Foreign policy becomes a dominantcampaign issue only when it has reached the rawnerve of the electorate. American involvement inVietnam was one such issue and Perot would liketo turn U.S. participation in NAFTA (NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement) and GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) intoanother raw nerve issue.

It is Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihans widelyshared opinion that elections are rarely our finesthour. In a political campaign, issues are alwaysoversimplified, overdramatized, andovercatastrophized. Perhaps in practice thereshould be no expectation that presidential

15


16/44

16

campaigns will be appropriate vehicles forobjective, thorough, balanced reviews of publicpolicy. Although this observation applies to bothdomestic and international issues, the latter aremade even more inscrutable by their complexities,

secrecy restrictions, and the limited knowledge ofmost voters. Thus it can be stated as a general lawof campaigning: While all issues are handled badly,foreign policy issues are handled worst.

There are no changes in the geography or thegeometry of American politics to suggest thatforeign policy issues are more or less likely to beraised in future presidential races. Or that theywill be handled more responsibly than in the

past. The irony is that the foreign policy promisesthe candidates make probably have little to dowith the foreign policy crises that presidentsactually confront. Judging from recent history,voters would be better served if candidates

addressed such questions as: What would you do ifa hostile power put offensive missiles in Cuba or ifNorth Korea uses a nuclear weapon or if warbreaks out again between Muslims and Serbs inBosnia? Unfortunately contenders for thepresidency do not answer hypothetical questions.But if they did, the results would be moreinteresting and certainly more useful thanthe foreign policy debates that now erupt inpresidential campaigns. _



17/44

17

More than a dozen polls in recent months haveasked U.S. voters about their main domestic andforeign policy concerns, including the issues thatare most important to them in deciding whichpresidential candidate will receive their vote. Mostof these polls found social issues, particularlyeducation and crime, rank ahead of economicissues (budget deficit, taxes, jobs), while foreign

policy/defense issues invariably place a distantthird. Most Americans continue to favor generallyactive U.S. involvement abroad, but fewer thanone in ten name a foreign affairs issue as one oftheir top national concerns.

The priority the public gives to various issuesdepends partly on how little hope or optimism ithas about the seriousness of these issues in thefuture. Optimism about the U.S. educationalsystem is the lowest it has been in two decades,and this issue receives high priority. In contrast,optimism about the U.S. ability to get along withother countries is at its high point, which helpsexplain why the public accords relatively lowpriority to the governments handling of U.S.foreign relations.

PUBLICS CORE VALUES IN FOREIGNAFFAIRS Americans views on U.S. foreignpolicy goals in the post-Cold War period haveconsistently fallen into four distinct attitudecategories, which differ considerably in priority:

U.S. Domestic Issues linked to foreign policy(e.g., protecting jobs of American workers,countering illegal drugs and illegal immigration)have the highest ratings. About 70 percent ofrespondents on average view these issues as veryimportant.

U.S. Global Interests (e.g., preventing nuclearproliferation, countering international terrorism,improving the environment) have the highestratings among the three strictly foreign policycategories. About 60 percent of respondents onaverage rate these concerns very important.

In contrast, all measures of Global Altruism

(e.g., promoting democracy and human rightsabroad, aiding developing nations) haveexperienced a decline in support since the end ofthe Cold War and this category contains the lowestratings by far. About 30 percent of the public onaverage considers these issues very important.

A Military Security category (e.g., defendingour allies security, maintaining U.S. militarypower) ranks about midway between U.S. GlobalInterests and Global Altruism, with about 45percent of respondents on average perceiving thiscategory as very important.

In-depth analyses of several polls suggest that U.S.involvement in Bosnia is a complex policy issuefor many Americans, reflecting values of GlobalAltruism as well as U.S. interest in Europeanstability. Americans are closely divided about U.S.participation in the current Bosnia peacekeepingmission. In contrast, a large majority of the public(about 70 percent) supports the recent missilestrikes in Iraq, which is widely perceived as apotential threat to U.S. vital interests.

Following are highlights of some of the recentsurveys:

WHAT THE POLLS SAY:ISSUES OF CONCERN TO AMERICAN VOTERS

By Alvin Richman, Senior Research Specialist

Office of Research and Media Reaction, U.S. Information Agency

_ T H E P R O C E S S A N D T H E P L A Y E R S


18/44

18

ISSUES RATED MOST IMPORTANT IN

VOTING FOR THE PRESIDENT

Two types of poll questions used during the pastfew months generally agree that American voters

are giving the highest priority to various socialissues and relatively low priority to U.S. foreignaffairs in electing their President:

1. Open-end (unstructured) questions permitrespondents to mention any problems thatspontaneously come to mind. The most recent ofthese polls by Harris (September 5-8) asked,What two issues do you think will be of mostimportance to you in determining whom you willvote for in the presidential election in November?

All in all, 76 percent of the respondents mentionedvarious social issues (including health care andMedicare/Medicaid, welfare, abortion, educationand crime/drugs) as a main criterion; 57 percentnamed economic issues (including taxes, thebudget deficit and jobs), and 13 percent namedvarious foreign policy/defense issues.

These results are similar overall to findingsobtained from recent polls asking the often-usedquestion: What is the most important problemfacing this country today? A CBS/NY Times poll(August 16-18) found 46 percent of the publicmentioned social problems, 30 percent namedeconomic problems, and only 2 percent cited aforeign policy issue.

2. Closed questions ask respondents to rateindividually a number of specific issues listed inthe questionnaire, using a common set of responsecategories (e.g., extremely important, veryimportant, somewhat important, notimportant). Several polls with closed questionsconcur that two social issues education andcrime rate higher than any of the top threeeconomic issues (budget deficit, taxes, jobs) ascriteria to be considered when voting for President.The most recent of these polls (Gallup/USA Today,July 18-21) showed about two-fifths of the publicbelieve education and crime are extremelyimportant criteria, compared to about a thirdwho view taxes and the federal budget deficit as

extremely important. About one-fifth of thepublic view foreign affairs as an extremelyimportant factor in electing the President.

These results are similar to findings obtained from

Washington Postpolls in June and July askingrespondents how worried they were (from a greatdeal to not at all) about 84 different issues. Thetop concerns which some three-fifths of thepublic says it worries about a great deal arethat the American educational system will getworse instead of better, crime will increase, andAIDS will become more widespread. A secondtier of issues which 40-50 percent of the publicsays it worries about a great deal involvesconcerns that Social Security and the Medicare

trust fund will run out of money, federal taxeswill go up, more and more good American jobswill be moved overseas, family incomes wontkeep up with prices, and the federal budgetdeficit will grow.

Regarding U.S. involvement in Bosnia, 36 percentof Americans say they worry a great deal that thesituation in Bosnia will worsen and our troopswill be bogged down and casualties will increase.A smaller number 24 percent of the public worries a great deal that factions (in Bosnia) willgo right back to killing each other once U.S.troops are pulled out of Bosnia. Relatively fewAmericans express concern about the size of U.S.expenditures on defense: Only 20 percent say theyworry a great deal because the U.S. doesntspend enough on its armed forces, and 13 percentreport that they worry a great deal because theU.S. spends too much on its armed forces.

Candidate Best Able to Handle Various Issues:About a dozen recent polls have asked whichpresidential candidate Democratic nominee BillClinton or Republican nominee Bob Dole would do a better job in dealing with variousissues. These polls consistently have found thepublic rates Clinton clearly ahead of Dole inprotecting the environment and handling certainsocial issues (education, health care, Medicare andimproving conditions for minority groups). Atthe same time, the public rates Dole ahead of


19/44

Clinton in maintaining U.S. military strength andhandling certain economic issues (controlling taxesand government spending). The public dividesfairly evenly on whether Clinton or Dole is morecapable of dealing with crime and drugs, the

federal budget deficit and foreign policy issues.

Publics Outlook on Different Issues: Theimportance accorded various issues depends partlyon how serious the problems are expected tobecome in the future. Issues about which publicpessimism is high or optimism is low compared to previous years receive relatively highratings from the public as criteria to be consideredwhen voting for President. A Gallup poll inMarch found optimism at its lowest level since

1974 (when this series of questions wasintroduced) concerning the following issues: themoral and ethical standards in our country (24percent of respondents were optimistic versus 53percent pessimistic), our system of education (41percent optimistic versus 39 percent pessimistic),and our system of government and how well itworks (43 percent optimistic versus 28 percentpessimistic). On the other hand, optimism is at anhistorical high point in terms of our ability to getalong with other countries in the world (61percent optimistic versus 18 percent pessimistic)and the U.S. economic outlook for the next yearor two (50 percent optimistic versus 18 percentpessimistic).

SUPPORT FOR U.S. INTERNATIONAL

INVOLVEMENT

Several trend measures show a small decline overthe past year or two in public support for anactivist U.S. world role. However nearly 60percent of Americans still favor a generally active

U.S. role in world affairs, including closecooperation with the United Nations, while about35-40 percent oppose active U.S. involvementabroad.

(1)Active U.S. role in world affairs: For the firsttime in the post-Cold War period, support for theU.S. taking an active part in world affairs has

dropped below the levels of support obtained inthe 1980s and early 1990s. In two recent polls, 58percent of respondents on average indicatedsupport for an active U.S. role, compared to 64-65percent in the earlier periods. At the same time,

the number who want the United States to stayout of world affairs has risen since the 1980s andearly 1990s, with 36 percent of respondents onaverage now favoring an isolationist stancecompared to 29-30 percent in the earlier periods.

(2) Mind our own business overseas: A surveyconducted in June by the Program onInternational Policy Attitudes at the University ofMaryland (PIPA) found 54 percent of the publicdisagreed (compared to 43 percent who agreed)

with the statement that the U.S. should mind itsown business internationally and let othercountries get along as best they can on their own.This is down five points from the averagepercentage of respondents who rejected thisisolationist position in three polls conducted inthe 1980s.

(3) Cooperate closely with the U.N.: Sixtypercent believe the U.S. should cooperate fullywith the United Nations (versus 37 percent whodisagree), according to a PIPA poll in June.This reflects a decline from the 77 percent peaklevel of support for U.S.-U.N. cooperationrecorded in October 1991, but is close to the levelof support obtained in the 1970s and 1980s, when58 percent of the public on average favored strongU.S.-U.N. ties.

PUBLICS CORE FOREIGN POLICY VALUES

The four attitude categories into which Americansforeign policy preferences consistently fall

Global Altruism, Global Interests, DomesticIssues, and Military Security were identifiedby means of in-depth analyses of two major post-Cold War surveys conducted by the ChicagoCouncil on Foreign Relations (October 1994) andby the Times Mirror Center (September 1993).These four basic attitude groups differconsiderably in priority accorded them by thepublic.

19


20/44

20

Global Altruism: All five Chicago Councilmeasures of this category recorded 20-year lowpoints in 1994, including three (promoting humanrights, aiding developing countries and protectingweaker nations against foreign aggression) that

were well below previous lows. With oneexception combating world hunger, which 56percent of respondents termed a very importantgoal this category had the lowest-rated measuresamong the 16 goal questions tested on the surveyin terms of importance to the U.S.

U.S. Global Interests: This category contains oneof the top foreign policy goals of the public,preventing nuclear proliferation which 82percent called very important and several

second tier goals: securing adequate energysupplies, called very important by 62 percent;improving the global environment, termed veryimportant by 58 percent; and strengthening theU.N., a goal which 51 percent said was veryimportant.

U.S. Domestic Issues: Most measures relating tothis category in contrast to Global Altruismmeasures have risen above levels in the 1980s.Two issues in this category receive the top tworatings: Stopping the flow of illegal drugs into theU.S. was a very important goal for 85 percent ofthe public. And protecting the jobs of Americanworkers was termed very important by 83percent the highest level recorded on this goalin 20 years. At the same time, however, supportfor placing tariffs and restrictions on importedgoods has declined to its lowest level in twodecades, with 48 percent of respondentssupporting this policy in the Chicago Councilsurvey in October 1994. These results areconsistent with other findings showing thatAmericans increasingly see U.S. economic securitytied to expanding exports rather than to reducingimports.

Military Security: The Chicago Council trendquestions relating to this category reveal a sharpcontrast: Support for maintaining the present U.S.commitment to NATO and using U.S. troops todefend Western Europe against a Russian invasion

has declined about ten percentage points from thehigh levels attained in the 1980s (about 60 percentof the public in late 1994 versus 70 percent in1986). But support for using U.S. troops todefend two countries outside of Europe has risen

about ten or more percentage points since the1980s. Thirty-nine percent in 1994 supporteddefending South Korea against a North Koreaninvasion, compared to 24 percent in 1986; and 42percent supported defending Israel against aninvasion by Arab forces, compared to 32 percentin 1986. These results suggest less an overalldiminution in the publics desire to protectmilitary security interests in the post-Cold War erathan a shift toward a more balanced, less Euro-centered set of security interests. These include

regional threats in the Middle East and Asia andglobal security threats, such as terrorism andnuclear proliferation.

U.S. Involvement in Bosnia: Various polls takenthis year show the American public is closelydivided about U.S. troop participation in thecurrent Bosnia peacekeeping mission (about 45percent in favor versus 45 percent opposed).Support for the Bosnia mission is enhanced by thefact that it is viewed in part as serving U.S.Military Security interests (i.e., U.S. interest in astable Europe) rather than being entirely anexpression of Global Altruism. On the otherhand, support for intervention in Bosnia is not ashigh as support for intervention in certainsituations viewed predominantly as vital securityinterests of the U.S. For example, more than halfof the public supports using U.S. combat troops todefend Western Europe or Saudi Arabia againstexternal attack.

U.S. Military Strikes Against Iraq: Four pollstaken shortly after the U.S. missile strikes againstIraq agree that about 70 percent of Americansapprove and only 20 percent disapprove ofPresident Clintons decision to launch missileattacks in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times poll(September 7-10) asked a separate questioncontaining three response categories and foundonly nine percent of the public believed the missilestrikes on Iraq were too tough an action. In


21/44

contrast, 30 percent said the strikes were nottough enough, while 46 percent said they wereabout right in response to Iraqs military moves.Iraq is perceived as a threat to U.S. interests in thePersian Gulf, and it ranks among the U.S. publics

least favorite countries. A Gallup poll last Marchfound 86 percent of the public have an

unfavorable opinion of Iraq, including 52percent who have a very unfavorable opinion ofthat country, while only six percent view Iraqfavorably. Americans have a more negativeperception of Iraq than of any of the other 14

countries listed in the poll, including Iran, which84 percent view unfavorably, and Cuba, which 81percent perceive unfavorably. _

21



22/44

22

The national campaign staffs of the Democraticand Republican presidential nominees are devotingconsiderable attention to how American votersreact to foreign policy issues, even though recentpublic opinion polls indicate that domestic issuesare now the U.S. electorates primary concern.

The two political organizations have recruitedinternational affairs experts, serving in both paid

and volunteer roles, to advise them on how best topromote the foreign policy positions of theircandidates.

Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clintonscampaign message on foreign affairs is principallyguided by James P. Rubin, who, until recently, wassenior adviser and chief press spokesperson forAmbassador Madeleine Albright, the U.S.Permanent Representative to the United Nations.Rubin is Director of Foreign Policy for theClinton/Gore re-election campaign as well as itspoint person for dealing with the press on foreignpolicy issues.

Rubin, who earned a masters degree ininternational affairs at Columbia University,formerly served on the staff of the Senate ForeignRelations Committee and advised Senator JosephBiden on foreign policy. He now works at theClinton/Gore campaign staff headquarters inWashington and stays in close touch with SamuelSandy Berger and Nancy Soderberg, bothDeputy Assistants to the President for NationalSecurity Affairs.

On the Republican side, presidential contenderBob Dole is relying on an experienced group ofworld affairs specialists, some of whom held keyforeign policy and security affairs positions duringthe Reagan and Bush administrations. Theyinclude Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Permanent

Representative to the United Nations, and formerSecretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ischair of the Dole/Kemp 96 national campaignand Kirkpatrick, one of 12 national co-chairs tothe campaign, is also a senior adviser on foreignpolicy.

How do the foreign policy advisers to thecampaigns view their roles in the 1996 presidential

election process and how do they define the keyforeign policy priorities and contributions of thecandidates? In recent interviews, representativesfrom both parties discussed these issues and offeredsome insight into the role of foreign policy in thecurrent campaign.

Rubin emphasized that it is important formembers of the campaign staff and the WhiteHouse to speak with the same voice on foreignpolicy issues. He does not perceive majordifferences between President Clinton and SenatorDole on the key foreign policy issues that includeU.S. global engagement and Americas role as aworld leader and sole remaining superpower.

The differences lie in an overall approach tosolving the complicated new threats in the world,he said. President Clinton is trying to mix apractical approach by using creative diplomacy,economic sanctions and where necessary theuse of force to confront the new threats ofterrorism, rogue states and international drugcartels.

One senses from Senator Doles side a more rigidapproach, a reflexive approach, Rubin said. Forexample, he opposed the Chemical WeaponsConvention using arguments that were familiarduring the Cold War days of insufficientverification. But we see that treaty as an additionaltool in the fight against terrorism.

THE ROLE OF FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERSIN DOLE, CLINTON CAMPAIGNS

By Wendy S. Ross, Contributing Editor


23/44

But the critical debate that occurs in Americanpolitics, Rubin said, is less between the candidatesthan between a candidate and the media. Themedia is the way in which hard questions are posedto candidates and difficult subjects are addressed

and have to be explained to the voting public.

Rubin portrays the biggest challenge in his new jobas trying to make foreign policy understandable tothe American people. They dont see tangiblethreats to their security, now that the Cold Warhas ended, he said. It is very important to makethem understand that terrorism and drugs andinternational crime, the environment, are allinternational issues that do come home to Americaat some level or another.

He said he gets help in these efforts from severalDemocratic members of Congress, who speak outpublicly on the issues and write newspaper op-edarticles. They include Senators Joseph Lieberman,Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd andRepresentatives Lee Hamilton and John Spratt.

Asked to highlight a typical workday, Rubin said:In the final weeks of the campaign, the journalistsand many of the major media organizations arepreparing articles to compare and contrastPresident Clinton and Senator Dole on foreignaffairs. So I work closely with them.

Im in a position to determine whether there is aneed to do rapid response to Senator Dolespositions. When he sank the chemical weaponstreaty, that required some rapid response work.

And finally, getting the material together for thedebate preparation. Thats a typical day. Rubinsaid he expects the moderators of the debates toinclude some foreign affairs questions for Dole andClinton to answer.

When Rubin first came to the Clinton re-electioncampaign, he did not think foreign policy wouldemerge as an issue of intense interest to the Americanelectorate. In fact, Rubin joked, he did not expect tobe busy at all. But with the turn of events in Iraq,the situation changed dramatically, he said.

The increasing criticism that were seeing fromthe Republicans over the Presidents handling ofIraq...could portend an attempt by them to makeforeign policy an issue, Rubin said in a speech atthe Womans National Democratic Club in

Washington.

Praising the presidents leadership on foreignpolicy, Rubin said, The public is rightly quitesatisfied with the achievements President Clintonhas made and the way in which he has balancedAmerican interests in engaging the world, withouttaking on commitments that the American peopleare not prepared to support.

In the early days of the Clinton presidency, Rubin

recalled, the administration grappled with somevery serious foreign policy problems carried overfrom preceding administrations, such as thesituations in Bosnia and Haiti. In both of thosecases Clinton made the decision to send U.S. forcesto help those countries move toward democracybecause he believed it was the right thing to do even though Congress and the American people ingeneral were wary of such engagement, Rubin said.These actions, he added, demonstrate that Clintonsforeign policy decisions are not dictated bydomestic political considerations.

We feel quite proud of what President Clinton hasaccomplished and believe that, contrary to manypast elections, foreign policy is a net plus for theDemocrats for the first time in a long time. Andthats really a major achievement for us, Rubin said.

However the Dole/Kemp campaign committeesees it differently, of course, and is implementingits own carefully devised strategy to tout Dolesforeign policy contributions as a U.S. Senator andthe world leadership role he would play if electedPresident.

Dole wants to lay down a marker as to thoseareas in which he differs from the ClintonAdministration on foreign policy issues, explainedPaula Dobriansky, who heads the foreign policygroup at the Dole/Kemp election campaign.

23


24/44

24

The speech Dole gave at the RepublicanConvention clearly reflects the foreign policy issuesthat he attaches significant importance to terrorism, ballistic missile defense, concern aboutthe United Nations and the issue of United States

military troops being subsumed under any kind ofU.N. command, she said.

Dobriansky outlined the ways in which Dolediffers from Clinton on foreign policy: Dole is avery strong supporter of ballistic missile defense.The Clinton administration has opposed it.Secondly, Senator Dole was a long-time and veryconsistent supporter of lifting the arms embargoon the Bosnian Muslims; the Clintonadministration only agreed to [lift] it at the time of

the Dayton accord in fact, that was one of theconditions that Senator Dole had expressed inorder to [support] the Dayton accord.

She said another disagreement between Dole andClinton concerns Russia and the handling ofChechnya. Senator Dole came out very stronglyagainst the Russian brutality in Chechnya andwould not have extended a substantial IMF(International Monetary Fund) loan to Russia in themidst of these atrocities. He has stated that. And[he] would not compare Chechnya to the AmericanCivil War, as Clinton did, Dobriansky said.

Dole solicits advice on foreign policy not only fromKirkpatrick and Rumsfeld but also from his formercolleagues in the Congress, including RepublicanSenator John McCain of Arizona, Dobriansky said.McCain, a former Navy pilot who was a prisoner ofwar in Vietnam, advises Dole on defense policy.Dobriansky also mentioned Kansan RobertEllsworth, a former Republican member of theHouse of Representatives, as another of Dolesadvisers on foreign policy.

Dobriansky said the campaign foreign policygroup that she heads oversees some 200 volunteerswho represent a wide range of backgrounds andinclude former high-level U.S. officials.

Dobriansky served in a variety of importantforeign policy jobs in Republican administrations.She was Associate Director for Policy andPrograms at the United States Information Agency,Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human

Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Director ofEuropean and Soviet Affairs at the NationalSecurity Council. She received an undergraduatedegree from Georgetown Universitys School ofForeign Service and earned masters and doctoraldegrees in Soviet political/military affairs atHarvard University.

On security affairs, the Dole campaign is alsoadvised by a defense group, headed by AmbassadorDavid Smith, former envoy to the Nuclear and

Space talks in Geneva in the Bush administration.Smith coordinates a group of volunteers who assistthe campaign in ways similar to the foreign policygroup, Dobriansky said. They include formerUnder Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,former Assistant Secretary of Defense RichardPerle, former Deputy Assistant Secretary ofDefense Douglas Feith, and former Counselor tothe Secretary of State Bob Zoellick. In addition,Dole is advised by former National SecurityAdviser General Brent Scowcroft and former JointChiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell.

The foreign policy and defense groups worktogether as a team, Dobriansky said. Webackstop one another on a wide range of issues.

A typical day for Doles foreign affairs advisers mayinvolve drafting talking points for Dole to use oncampaign trips, writing position papers, providingstatements to media and other groups, andparticipating in meetings where foreign policytopics are discussed, Dobriansky said.

Rumsfeld, as the campaign chair, serves as theintermediary with Dole on the campaign trail andis in close daily contact with the Senator, eventhough he may not always be traveling with thecandidate, she added. _

U. S. FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA USIA ELECTRONIC JOURNALS VOLUME 1 NUMBER 9 JULY 1996


25/44

25

The platforms adopted at U.S. political partyconventions have had one consistent function: tooutline what the party stands for in language thatall its candidates in the upcoming electioncampaign can, hopefully, subscribe to.

This striving for inclusiveness is not a newphenomenon; indeed, Wendell Willkie, theRepublican presidential candidate in 1940, referred

to platform documents as fusions of ambiguity.

Despite this effort to bring in all viewpoints, thejob of assembling the party platform has often inthe past produced lively, and even angry, disputeson the convention floor. Thus, for example,Prohibition the federal governments ban onalcoholic beverages proved a contentious issuefor the 1932 Republican convention thatnominated Herbert Hoover. Fights over civilrights planks actually caused angry conventionwalkouts for Democrats in the 1940s.

But such disarray was notable by its absence thisyear. Party platforms, along with the selection ofthe presidential and vice presidential candidates,were effectively resolved even before delegatesassembled at a pair of conventions theRepublicans in San Diego, the Democrats inChicago that were artfully crafted to displayminimum conflict and maximum party harmony.Both party platforms won floor approval without ahint of argument, dissent or fanfare.

A seemingly growing disconnect between theplatform documents and the campaign wasaccelerated this year as, at least in one party,responsible officials voiced their disinterest in thedocument and denied even knowing what was in it.

The Republican Partys presidential candidatehimself, Bob Dole, said during the convention that

he did not feel bound by the platforms provisions.I probably agree with most everything in it, but Ihavent read it, he confessed. The party chairman,Haley Barbour, acknowledged that he hadnt readthe document either. So did Speaker of the HouseNewt Gingrich, considered one of theRepublicans leading idea men.

Democrats were quick to jump on this

phenomenon. Unlike the Republicans, saidSenator Christopher Dodd, his partys generalchairman, his colleagues offered a platform thatDemocratic candidates could run on with pride.But while Democrats did not go so far as todisown their partys policy document predictably a call for continuity neither didthey make much effort to focus public or mediaattention on it.

And what is in this years platforms?

As is inevitably the case, the incumbent party inthis case the Democrats points with pride toits accomplishments in office, while the challengers now the Republicans view with alarmwhat they portray as the sorry state things havecome to since the voters turned them out of power.

In one important general respect, however, theRepublican platform jibes with the Democratsversion: Although both documents put their mainemphasis on domestic issues, both see a vital rolefor continued U.S. engagement in the world.

Given the new challenges and new threats to ourvital interests in the wake of the Cold War, theRepublicans say, our nation must resist thetemptation to turn inward and neglect the exerciseof American leadership and our proper role in theworld. The section on foreign affairs in theirplatform begins with a comparable quote from

PLATFORMS: HOW THE PARTIES DEFINETHEIR POLICY POSITIONS

By Ralph Dannheisser, Contributing Editor


26/44

26

candidate Dole: Its time to restore Americanleadership throughout the world. Our futuresecurity depends on American leadership that isrespected, American leadership that is trusted, andwhen necessary, American leadership that is feared.

The Democratic platform, for its part, declares,President Clinton and Vice President Gore haveseized the opportunities of the post-Cold War era.Over the past four years, their leadership has madeAmerica safer, more prosperous, and more engagedin solving the challenges of a new era.

Here are other highlights of the two partiesplatforms:

THE REPUBLICANS

In the case of the Republicans, a platform boundinto a handsomely printed 100-odd page bookletcalled Restoring the American Dream wasdeveloped by a 107-member committee headed byCongressman Henry Hyde of Illinois. Withconflict on the touchy issue of abortion finessed inadvance of the convention pro-choice advocateswere able to outline their views in a separateappendix to the document the platform passed,quietly and without amendment, on the firstevening of the convention. It got little notice fromthe commercial television networks during thenightly prime time hour that they devoted toconvention coverage.

Of the overall platform, some 20 pages assembled under the rubric, Restoring AmericanWorld Leadership deal with foreign affairs andrelated topics.

In line with the view with alarm approach

generally adopted by the non-incumbent party, theRepublican document insists that theinternational situation and our countryssecurity against the purveyors of evil hasworsened over the last three-and-a-half-yearswhile President Clinton has been in office.

It goes on to chronicle a long list of supposedClinton administration failures: Today, Russias

democratic future is more uncertain than at anytime since the hammer and sickle was torn fromthe Kremlin towers. With impunity, Fidel Castrohas shot American citizens out of the skies overinternational waters. North Korea has won

unprecedented concessions regarding its nuclearcapability from the Clinton Administration.Much of Africa has dissolved in tragedy Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia. The Clintonadministration objected to lifting the armsembargo on Bosnia while it facilitated the flow ofIranian weapons to that country. Bill Clintonmade tough campaign pledges on China butsubsequently failed in his attempt to bluff theChinese government diminishing Americanprestige while not addressing the serious issues of

human rights, regional stability, and nuclearproliferation.

Describing the Republicans as the party of peacethrough strength, the platform advocates puttingthe interests of our country over those of othernations and of the United Nations.

The document assures that Republicans will notsubordinate United States sovereignty to anyinternational authority. It reiterates what hasbecome a major foreign policy theme for the party:We oppose the commitment of American troopsto U.N. peacekeeping operations under foreigncommanders and will never compel Americanservicemen to wear foreign uniforms or insignia.Further, it calls for an end to waste,mismanagement and fraud at the United Nations,and rejects any international taxation by thatorganization or any grant of authority to aninternational court to try American citizens.

With respect to Europe, the platform calls forstrengthening of the North Atlantic TreatyOrganization, which it deems the worldsstrongest bulwark of freedom and internationalstability. It specifically endorses Doles call forexpansion of NATO to include Poland, the CzechRepublic and Hungary by 1998.

While voicing support for U.S. troops in Bosnia, itchallenges the ill-conceived and inconsistent


27/44

27

policies that led to their deployment. Theplatform proposes a timely withdrawal of U.S.forces, linked to provision of weapons and trainingto the Bosnian Federation, as the only realisticexit strategy.

On defense issues, the platform charges thatClinton has left the United States defenselessagainst missile attack and calls for establishment ofa national missile defense system for all 50 statesby 2003. It describes the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty, signed September 24 by President Clinton,as inconsistent with American security interestsin limiting still-necessary testing. And, claimingseriously eroded military readiness, it proposesbroad steps to reverse the decline in what our

nation spends for defense.

The document promises a proactive policyagainst state-sponsored terrorism, declaring thatthe governments of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq,Libya, Sudan and Cuba must know that Americasfirst line of defense is not our shoreline, but theirown borders.

In Africa, the Republicans propose continuing aidprograms, but on a more limited case-by-casebasis. In Asia, they call for emphasis on U.S.mutual security treaties with Japan and theRepublic of Korea as the foundation of our role inthe region, a tougher stance toward North Koreaand Vietnam, vigilance with regard to Chinasmilitary potential and attitude on human rights,and a reaffirmed commitment to Taiwans security.In the Middle East, they emphasize the criticalimportance of Israel as our most reliable andcapable ally in this part of the world and endorserecognition of Jerusalem as Israels undividedcapital. In the Western Hemisphere, they call for anew partnership to fight narcotics traffickers andprotect democratic gains, and they reaffirm apolicy of isolating the Castro regime in Cuba.

On foreign aid, the platform language suggests aturn toward spending on military aid to allies andaway from U.N. operations and social welfarespending in the Third World.

THE DEMOCRATS

The Democrats list no fewer than 191 memberson the committee that put together their own 47-page platform document; drafting the actual

document was entrusted to a group of 16 headedby Governor Zell Miller of Georgia. Miller notedthe platform-building exercise had started with afull day of public hearings in July.

The Democratic platform which devotes justten pages to foreign policy items under theheading, Security, Freedom and Peace takescredit for what Democrats see as an unbrokenstring of foreign policy successes during theClinton administration.

It points proudly to diplomacy that has eliminatedthousands of Russian nuclear weapons aimed atAmerican cities, the growth of democracy and freemarkets in the countries of the former SovietUnion, movement toward peace in the Middle Eastand in Northern Ireland, suspension of the NorthKorean nuclear program, and a revitalization ofNATO that has incorporated peacekeeping effortsin Bosnia and impending expansion to include newCentral European members.

It claims successes in a restoration of democracy inHaiti, establishment of a national unitygovernment in South Africa through electionsstrongly backed by the United States, andimprovement of the international trading climateby means of initiatives such as the Summit of theAmericas, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperationmeetings and the trade promotion efforts of thelate Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Asserting that the Republicans counsel policies ofretreat and indifference, the platform advocatesinstead a continuation of policies exertingAmerican leadership across a range of military,diplomatic and humanitarian challenges aroundthe world.

The Democratic prescription on defense includesfull funding of the Pentagons five-year spendingplan, undertaking a second fundamental review of


28/44

28

the defense structure, increasing coordinationamong the service branches, and ensuring that ourtroops can dominate the battlefield of the future.

The platform calls for an aggressive effort against

weapons of mass destruction nuclear, chemicaland biological and their means of delivery, andspecifically endorses swift action to approve andeffectuate a Comprehensive Test Ban

Documents

foreign policy and the 1996 presidential election