Foreign Policy

Overseas Military Operations | Iran | Syria | North Korea | People’s Republic of China | Taiwan | Israel | United Nations


U.S. foreign policy should promote the core American values of democracy, protection of individual rights and freedoms, and respect for the rule of law.  Nations adhering to those principles are not only better allies, but they generally contribute to greater global stability.
Our foreign policy should be designed to:

I also support foreign policies that promote:

I support free and fair trade with other nations because it benefits both American consumers and producers, and promotes economic and political stability abroad that serves our national interests. The mutual benefits of free trade will only be fully realized, though, if our trading partners adhere to the rule of law – including the protection of intellectual property rights – and if adversaries are denied sensitive technologies with military applications that may be turned against us.

I oppose efforts by the United Nations and other international bodies that would infringe upon our national sovereignty or threaten our interests.  You can read the remarks about American Sovereignty and Transnational Law, which I delivered for the Willard H. Pedrick Lecture Series at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, by clicking here.

I believe the American people are generous and are willing to support those in need around the world with foreign aid; however, their generosity is not limitless, especially considering our mounting federal debt.

 

Overseas Military Operations top

The last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in December 2011, and President Obama has announced an accelerated timetable for ending the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan as well.  By the mid-to-latter part of 2013, the U.S. will make a transition from a combat role in Afghanistan to a train, advise and assist role.

Though we all want to see our troops come home as soon as possible, precipitous withdrawals could jeopardize the hard-fought gains our servicemen and women have made in both countries.   The Washington Post reported in late January that violence appears to be up sharply since U.S. troops left Iraq and that a domestic political crisis has erupted in the wake of their departure, threatening to develop into a full-scale civil war.

Similarly in Afghanistan, the president has charted an ambitious withdrawal, despite the ongoing violence and increasing instability that threatens to rollback the security gains made by NATO forces there over the past decade.

Our military strategy in the region ought to be dictated by what is required to defeat the terrorists who could otherwise regain ground and renew their attacks on U.S. interests in the region and beyond.  As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has observed, “If Afghanistan were taken over by the Taliban, I can't tell you how fast al Qaeda would be back.”

Iran top

Writing for the Washington Post, liberal columnist Richard Cohen observed that “the Iranian regime is doubly unstable.  It faces considerable domestic opposition, but it also can be astonishingly violent.  In addition to the attempt on the life of the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Iran had its own former prime minister stabbed to death in a Paris hotel room, allegedly was behind the bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish center (85 dead) and is blamed for the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in which 19 U.S. airmen were killed.  This is a dangerous regime.”

Armed with conventional weapons and tactics, Iran is indeed dangerous.  Armed with nuclear weapons, it would be one of the greatest threats the world has ever known.

Iran has already successfully tested medium-range ballistic missiles, and is pursuing long-range missile capabilities as well.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed in November 2011 that Iran continues to violate U.N. Security Council resolutions that call for a halt to its nuclear program.  Time to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is nearly up.

Economic sanctions and covert operations are the only non-military options available to force the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear program.  Sanctions – embodied in legislation I cosponsored that was signed into law in December – are intended to build public pressure on the regime within Iran itself, as well as make it impossible for countries to use the international financial system to buy Iranian oil, the proceeds from which it funds its nuclear ambitions.  By all indications, the sanctions are already having an effect, as the value of Iran’s currency has rapidly declined and food prices have increased.  However, despite this pressure, Iran’s rulers continue to pursue their nuclear ambitions.  Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Ronald Burgess, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated unequivocally that, “Tehran is not close to agreeing to abandoning its nuclear program.” All options must remain on the table to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Syria

In March 2011, Syrian people took to the streets to protest the authoritarian government of Bashar al Assad and to demand greater freedom.  Their peaceful demonstrations were met with a brutal backlash from Syrian security forces.  An estimated 6,000 people have already lost their lives in the violence.

Sparked by the bloodshed, the international community has expressed outrage.  The U.S. Senate agreed to a resolution condemning the actions of the Syrian government, and the UN General Assembly approved a resolution calling for Assad to relinquish power.  The Arab League has asked the United Nations Security Council to authorize a joint peacekeeping force, but Russia and China have signaled their intention to veto the effort and protect Assad’s regime.

The U.S. should be proud to ally itself with Syrians who are rising up against a tyrant like Bashar Assad, and our government must do more to support their cause.  I’ve encouraged the President to take a firmer role in condemning the violence and supporting the Syrian people, and I have cosponsored legislation that would update and expand sanctions on the Syrian regime, as well as a resolution calling for the President to support democratic change in Syria.

North Korea

Following the death of Kim Jong Il last year, Kim Jong Un assumed his father’s role as head of the North Korean state.  Whether he continues his father’s brutal repression of the Korean people or acts of belligerence against his neighbors remains to be seen, but it is clear that the United States needs better intelligence to assess developments there as well as threats to American interests and those of our allies.

Recently, President Obama reneged on assurances that his administration would not provide any financial incentives or food aid to North Korea in exchange for dubious commitments of cooperation toward denuclearization.   In linking North Korean denuclearization commitments to food aid, President Obama violated long-standing U.S. policy.  The North Korean regime has repeatedly accepted American concessions only to fail to follow through with the commitments it made in exchange.  A firmer policy is necessary – the U.S. cannot continue to exchange benefits for empty promises from North Korea.   With that in mind, I cosponsored legislation to strengthen sanctions on the North Korean regime, including making it more difficult for Pyongyang to receive or transport weapons of mass destruction and related materials.

People’s Republic of China
 top

Engagement with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is inevitable, especially in regional matters such as those involving North Korea’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, though, China has not been helpful in preventing nuclear proliferation, as it continues to block efforts in the U.N. Security Council to sanction Iran and North Korea.  Moreover, state-owned Chinese firms have invested significantly in Iran’s energy sector, signing contracts worth billions of dollars with the Iranian and North Korean governments.  And, of course, China’s human rights record is dismal.

China continues to expand its military capabilities.  A 2011 Defense Department report about China's military power indicated that Beijing is continuing to build its forces at a growing rate in an effort to achieve a more powerful position in the region.  The report, along with others on the China’s military expansion, documents that nation’s relentless pursuit of military capabilities designed specifically to counter American military superiority.  For example, it found that China had successfully designed and tested anti-satellite weapons that could disrupt U.S. military capabilities, and there is evidence of a significant and concerted program of cyber warfare run by the People’s Liberation Army with the aim of gaining access to American military, industrial, and government systems.  China has also developed an anti-ship ballistic missile specifically designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers at long distances.

Bellicosity from Beijing and continued military expansion threatens the security of our strategic and democratic partners in the Asia-Pacific, including Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.  The United States will need to work closely with these countries and other friends in the region to ensure that China’s increased influence does not jeopardize stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

Taiwan top

I strongly support efforts to maintain and strengthen our relationship with Taiwan as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act.  I also support the longstanding policy that commits the U.S. to provide Taiwan with the military resources essential to its defense.

Israel top

In a world where most international relationships are forged for strategic or political reasons, the United States and Israel enjoy a true friendship.  The reason is not hard to understand.  Israel, like the United States, represents something that our enemies cannot tolerate:  a thriving democracy, which, in Israel’s case, is right in their midst.

Israel, in fact, is the most well-established democracy in the Middle East.  It accords rights to women and elects its leaders by a true democratic vote.  Schools in Israel do not teach children to support the destruction of Arab countries, nor do they compare the United States to Satan.  The Israeli media are free to write and report as they wish.  Israeli citizens can say what they think, denounce their government’s policies, stage protests, and read and write whatever they please.
I believe it is imperative that the United States continue to support Israel – not only because our two nations share common values and political interests, but also because we are facing a common threat from international terrorists.  With Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah operating in southern Lebanon, Israel’s citizens face continuing attacks by terrorist groups dedicated to their elimination.  Hostile nations, such as Iran, also continue to threaten Israel’s existence and undermine the Middle East peace process.

The road to peace in the region is clearly not an easy one. It demands that both sides make sacrifices. For some time, the United States has stuck to the principles of the Quartet (the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union), which require any Palestinian government to commit to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including those embodied in the Middle East Roadmap.

I support this position, and I hope that a peaceful solution to this longstanding conflict can be reached.

United Nations top

I have never been a strong supporter of the UN, and I believe we should reduce our financial support. Our relationship with the UN should always be governed by what is in America's own best interest.