|
|
Campaign 2000: Albert Gore
Al Gore is, without question, the most experienced candidate for president this year. No other candidate has his firsthand experience with foreign policy decisionmaking. But Gore has downplayed foreign policy on the campaign trail, preferring instead to talk about his plans for Social Security and Medicare. Thus his foreign policy is neither as defined as Bush's nor as discussed in the media.
One reason why Gore may not have put forward a comprehensive policy yet is that any differences between his plan and the Clinton administration's record will be taken as an implicit criticism of the president he has served for nearly eight years. Indeed, his website's list of his foreign policy priorities includes passing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Kyoto Accords. These goals are little more than unfulfilled items on the Clinton agenda. Since Gore's campaign strategy to date has been to identify the vice president more closely with the Clinton record, his reluctance to remind voters that the Clinton foreign policy record has been somewhat weak is understandable.
All together now
Yet even from the few words that Gore has spoken on the subject, it's clear that a Gore presidency would have a foreign policy less based on the national interest than on moral and humanitarian grounds. In contrast to Bush's unilateral rejection of American troops serving as U.N. peacekeepers, Gore praises the United Nations and states that through the U.N., "the U.S. can build critical international support for issues and policies to our foreign policy goals." The Bush foreign policy team explicitly ruled out the need for U.N. sanction on American use of power in Condoleezza Rice's Foreign Affairs article. Like the Clinton administration, Gore would continue to seek resolution to international disputes in multinational institutions.
Much of Gore's remaining rhetoric on the topic is empty generalities. Unlike Bush, Gore does have a position on the "soft" issues of global poverty and hunger: "Let me be clear: Promoting prosperity throughout the world is a crucial form of forward engagement." This humanitarian tone is a constant theme in his speeches. Gore believes that "our national security interests can be defined by our values."
There are problems with defining a foreign policy on moral grounds. Gore answers critics' charges that the administration has been hypocritical and selective in its intervention policy (intervening in Kosovo, standing by in Chechnya) by saying that the difference in policy stems from the fact that "in Bosnia we had NATO allies in the region." For troubled nations whose borders touch nuclear powers, or for African nations like Rwanda whose borders touch no American interest, this explanation is surely less than reassuring.
Conclusion
President Gore's policy would likely contain much the same strengths and weaknesses of Clinton's policy: appealing in academic debate, but difficult to apply to the real world. Further, Gore's well-known environmentalism could prove a hindrance to Gore's other policies. It would likely prove difficult for the vice president to walk away from a ratification fight over Kyoto, for example. With the Republicans likely to retain their hold on the Senate until the next election, such a fight would suck up Gore's attention and political capital for no purpose, much as last year's CTBT fight and 1998's "fast track" battles absorbed Clinton's time and energy. |
Campaign2000 Gore
|
Resources | Discussion | Teachers | About Us
This page was created as part of the 2000 ThinkQuest Internet Challenge
If you have comments or suggestions, please email the webmaster.