Monday, August 13, 2007

Bill Richardson on foreign policy

Via Cernig at The NewsHoggers, Bill Richardson's recent article in Harvard International Review setting out his vision for American foreign policy. The article makes some great points.

*“US leaders also must restore their commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation . . .”

*“[P]romoting expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership to include Japan, India, Germany, and one country each from Africa and Latin America.”

*“[E]xpanding the G8 to include new economic giants like India and China.”

*“The US government must join the International Criminal Court and respect all
international treaties, including the Geneva Conventions.”

*“On environmental issues, the United States must be the leader, not the laggard, in
global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by embracing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, and then, going well beyond it, leading the world with a man-on-the-moon effort to improve energy efficiency and to commercialize clean, alternative technologies.”

*“[S]top considering diplomatic engagement with others as a reward for good behavior.”

*Various efforts to contain nuclear proliferation, including ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

*“The United States needs to start showing, both through its words and through its actions, that this is not, as the Jihadists [and Conservative Islamophobes - C] claim, a clash of civilizations. Rather, it is a clash between civilization and barbarity.”

*“[C]losing Guantanamo.”

*“The United States also needs to pressure Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other friends in the Arab world to reform their education systems, which are incubators of anti-US sentiment.”

*“[P]ressure pharmaceutical companies to allow expanded use of generic drugs, and it should encourage public-private partnerships to reduce costs and enhance access to anti-malarial drugs and bed nets.”

*[P]romote a multilateral Marshall Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.

It's a long article, and I'm still digesting parts of it, but I like this plan:

Most urgently, the United States must focus on the real security threats, from which Iraq has so dangerously diverted its attention. This means doing the hard work to build strong coalitions to fight terrorists and to stop nuclear proliferation. There is a pronounced need for better human intelligence and better international intelligence and law enforcement coordination to prevent nuclear trafficking. US diplomatic leadership is needed to unite the world, including Russia and China, to sanction the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and to provide these nations with positive incentives and face-saving ways to renounce nuclear weapons.

Richardson's chance of being elected is slim, but he'd make a great Secretary of State.
*Thanks, Cernig


Anonymous said...

I just want to comment on your assessment that Richardson has little chance of getting the nomination. Richardson is polling in Iowa at the same level John Kerry was the summer of 2003 (and far ahead of where Edwards was four years ago who finished a surprising second). Richardson is at 12% in New Hampshire as well, only 3 points behind Edwards in the latest poll.

Richardson is a master at retail politics. The more people get to know him, the more support he generates.

Richardson was the only Democrat aside from Obama to show an increase in donations in the 2Q over the 1Q 2007. He has strong organizations in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. He has enough money on hand to run competitive races in each of those states. Keep in mind HRC and Obama can't risk spending all their money on the early caucus/primary states or they'll have nothing for Super Tuesday on February 5th.

The only governor competing for the Democratic nomination, Richardson is uniquely positioned to win in November 2008. Over the past 30 years four governors have won the presidency. In the entire history of our nation, only two senators have accomplished that feat.

Assuming Gore doesn't run, Richardson is one of four persons in America that will be the Democratic nominee for President.

The dominant issue in the campaign for Democrats is the Iraq War. Of the top four Democratic candidates Richardson has the only crystal clear, unambiguous approach that most Democrats favor - a total withdraw of our forces. Richardson understands the path the US must take to get out of Iraq. For the Senators our withdrawal will be a long and slow march. The intervention will continue for years to come. Once Democrats in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire focus on the race and this particular issue, I predict Richardson's poll numbers will further improve.

Finally, keep in mind, almost half of the Iowa caucus voters in 2004 didn't choose a candidate until less than a month before the election. A lot can change between now and election day.

Fran said...

I have been stopping by as we seem to frequent the same blogging places. Glad I came by today- GREAT POST.

Richardson has all the credentials, and all due respect to the well written and thought out comments above... I am still not convinced he'd get nominated.

That said, I think he'd make a great SOS or VP. He brings a lot to the table and he is a thinking person with a lot of diplomatic experience.

Anyway- I am overdue to add you to the blogroll and will do so now!

pygalgia said...

Actually I'm in Richardson's camp. The betting side of me goes against his chance of winning (see previous posts about framing), but I am behind Bill Richardson being th best current candidate for POTUS. I like the guy, but I doubt that he can win.