'Democratic Candidates Reject Trump’s Foreign Policy, but Don’t Agree on Theirs' diff viewer (0/1)

This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on February 07, 2020 08:24 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/us/politics/democratic-candidates-foreign-policy.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 Next version

Previous version 1 Next version

Version 0	Version 1
Democratic Candidates Reject Trump’s Foreign Policy, but Don’t Agree on Theirs	Democratic Candidates Reject Trump’s Foreign Policy, but Don’t Agree on Theirs
2020-02-07 08:26:17 UTC	2020-02-08 00:42:22 UTC (about 16 hours later)
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang say that if elected, they would continue President Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. But Joseph R. Biden Jr., Michael R. Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar would not: That approach has just propped up a dictator while his nuclear arsenal expands, Mr. Biden argues.	Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang say that if elected, they would continue President Trump’s personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. But Joseph R. Biden Jr., Michael R. Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar would not: That approach has just propped up a dictator while his nuclear arsenal expands, Mr. Biden argues.
Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren and Tom Steyer say they might put conditions on American military aid to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in disputed territory, or to discourage annexation of the West Bank. But only Mr. Steyer says he would reverse Mr. Trump’s move of the American embassy to Jerusalem.	Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren and Tom Steyer say they might put conditions on American military aid to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in disputed territory, or to discourage annexation of the West Bank. But only Mr. Steyer says he would reverse Mr. Trump’s move of the American embassy to Jerusalem.
Only Mr. Biden and Mr. Bloomberg would consider using military force to protect the free shipment of oil supplies, which could escalate toward a military confrontation with Iran. But only Ms. Warren and Mr. Yang said they wouldn’t consider using force to stop North Korea or Iran from testing a nuclear weapon or missile, something that does not usually pose an immediate threat to American territory or troops.	Only Mr. Biden and Mr. Bloomberg would consider using military force to protect the free shipment of oil supplies, which could escalate toward a military confrontation with Iran. But only Ms. Warren and Mr. Yang said they wouldn’t consider using force to stop North Korea or Iran from testing a nuclear weapon or missile, something that does not usually pose an immediate threat to American territory or troops.
These are a few of the deep differences among the Democratic presidential candidates on foreign policy and national security, based on responses to a New York Times survey on a range of issues that the nation’s commander in chief is likely to face in 2021.	These are a few of the deep differences among the Democratic presidential candidates on foreign policy and national security, based on responses to a New York Times survey on a range of issues that the nation’s commander in chief is likely to face in 2021.
As seven of these candidates gather on Friday night for their next televised debate, the survey shows a party less committed to the Obama era than one might expect, and unified by very few issues: most prominently containment of Russia, which many Democrats believe stole the presidency in 2016.	As seven of these candidates gather on Friday night for their next televised debate, the survey shows a party less committed to the Obama era than one might expect, and unified by very few issues: most prominently containment of Russia, which many Democrats believe stole the presidency in 2016.
At the same time, the Democrats say that America’s role in the world would look radically different under them than under President Trump: a rapid rebuilding of alliances, no more “America First” unilateralism and a renewed commitment to human rights, even if it comes at some economic cost.	At the same time, the Democrats say that America’s role in the world would look radically different under them than under President Trump: a rapid rebuilding of alliances, no more “America First” unilateralism and a renewed commitment to human rights, even if it comes at some economic cost.
“There are so many easy ways a Democratic president could reverse the damage of Trump decisions that foreign policy hasn’t been a way to discriminate among the candidates,” said Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Republican who served in the Bush White House. “But the differences are really significant.”	“There are so many easy ways a Democratic president could reverse the damage of Trump decisions that foreign policy hasn’t been a way to discriminate among the candidates,” said Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute and a Republican who served in the Bush White House. “But the differences are really significant.”
Ms. Schake said she was “particularly surprised” by the candidates’ broad willingness to entertain pre-emptive force against Iran simply for conducting a missile test, while they broadly rejected the use of force to preserve oil supplies.	Ms. Schake said she was “particularly surprised” by the candidates’ broad willingness to entertain pre-emptive force against Iran simply for conducting a missile test, while they broadly rejected the use of force to preserve oil supplies.
Veterans of the Obama administration say that the candidates have a lot of work to do to convince voters — even those who reject Mr. Trump’s worldview — to focus on their approaches to building alliances, using force and competing with an aggressive Russia and a rising China.	Veterans of the Obama administration say that the candidates have a lot of work to do to convince voters — even those who reject Mr. Trump’s worldview — to focus on their approaches to building alliances, using force and competing with an aggressive Russia and a rising China.
“Every presidential campaign I’ve ever been a part of, there’s a commander in chief ad,” Wendy Sherman, who conducted the day-to-day negotiations with Iran for the 2015 nuclear agreement, told an audience at the University of New Hampshire last week. “Everybody says at least once, you know, ‘You can rely on me at 3 in the morning.’” But the issues are “rarely central except when we’re in crisis.”	“Every presidential campaign I’ve ever been a part of, there’s a commander in chief ad,” Wendy Sherman, who conducted the day-to-day negotiations with Iran for the 2015 nuclear agreement, told an audience at the University of New Hampshire last week. “Everybody says at least once, you know, ‘You can rely on me at 3 in the morning.’” But the issues are “rarely central except when we’re in crisis.”
She noted that only a month ago, with the targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Iranian military leader, “we were on the brink of war.”	She noted that only a month ago, with the targeted killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the Iranian military leader, “we were on the brink of war.”
And the Democrats, it turns out, even disagree on whether that killing was legal, or wise.	And the Democrats, it turns out, even disagree on whether that killing was legal, or wise.
Perhaps the most striking takeaway from the survey was that the candidates have sharply different views on what circumstances justify the use of military force, aside from responding to an attack on the United States or a treaty ally.	Perhaps the most striking takeaway from the survey was that the candidates have sharply different views on what circumstances justify the use of military force, aside from responding to an attack on the United States or a treaty ally.
Their disagreements were particularly clear on whether they would consider using force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test — in other words, to prevent a launch that was meant to prove a country’s capability, but not to attack American territory, troops or interests. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama each faced that decision and decided not to strike.	Their disagreements were particularly clear on whether they would consider using force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test — in other words, to prevent a launch that was meant to prove a country’s capability, but not to attack American territory, troops or interests. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama each faced that decision and decided not to strike.
Most of the candidates campaigning as moderates said they would consider it: Mr. Biden, Mr. Bloomberg, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Interestingly, one of the most liberal candidates, Mr. Sanders, said the same.	Most of the candidates campaigning as moderates said they would consider it: Mr. Biden, Mr. Bloomberg, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Interestingly, one of the most liberal candidates, Mr. Sanders, said the same.
Only Ms. Warren and Mr. Yang said they would not consider force in that situation. Ms. Klobuchar did not answer the question, and Mr. Steyer gave a noncommittal answer.	Only Ms. Warren and Mr. Yang said they would not consider force in that situation. Ms. Klobuchar did not answer the question, and Mr. Steyer gave a noncommittal answer.
But when asked if they might use force to protect the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf or other areas, only Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Biden said yes.	But when asked if they might use force to protect the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf or other areas, only Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Biden said yes.
“I would consider the use of the military, in partnership with allies, to defend shipping lanes or important assets if the disruption to oil supplies posed a threat to the global economy,” Mr. Biden said.	“I would consider the use of the military, in partnership with allies, to defend shipping lanes or important assets if the disruption to oil supplies posed a threat to the global economy,” Mr. Biden said.
The candidates unanimously said that they would consider using military force for a humanitarian intervention, or that they could at least envision a scenario in which they might. But three — Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren and Mr. Steyer — included caveats. Mr. Biden specified that he was referring to stopping genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Ms. Warren and Mr. Steyer emphasized that military intervention should remain the last resort, and all three said they would undertake such intervention only as part of a coalition.	The candidates unanimously said that they would consider using military force for a humanitarian intervention, or that they could at least envision a scenario in which they might. But three — Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren and Mr. Steyer — included caveats. Mr. Biden specified that he was referring to stopping genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Ms. Warren and Mr. Steyer emphasized that military intervention should remain the last resort, and all three said they would undertake such intervention only as part of a coalition.
There was a split on whether President Trump acted legally — or wisely — when he ordered the killing of General Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force.	There was a split on whether President Trump acted legally — or wisely — when he ordered the killing of General Suleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force.
Mr. Bloomberg argued that the killing was legal and would have been justifiable if there was evidence of an imminent attack (evidence the Trump administration initially claimed existed, but never produced). But he said it would remain unclear whether it was wise until he knew whether it had reduced Iran’s support of terrorism or helped stop Iran’s nuclear program for a time.	Mr. Bloomberg argued that the killing was legal and would have been justifiable if there was evidence of an imminent attack (evidence the Trump administration initially claimed existed, but never produced). But he said it would remain unclear whether it was wise until he knew whether it had reduced Iran’s support of terrorism or helped stop Iran’s nuclear program for a time.
Most of the other candidates leaned toward opposing the killing, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren giving the most definitive rejections. ~~(Mr.~~ ~~Biden~~ ~~did~~ ~~not~~ ~~answer~~ ~~the~~ ~~question.)~~	Most of the other candidates leaned toward opposing the killing, with Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren giving the most definitive rejections.
“The right question isn’t ‘was this a bad guy,’ but rather ‘does assassinating him make Americans safer?’” Mr. Sanders’s campaign said. “The answer is clearly no.”	“The right question isn’t ‘was this a bad guy,’ but rather ‘does assassinating him make Americans safer?’” Mr. Sanders’s campaign said. “The answer is clearly no.”
Just about all of the candidates said they would re-enter the Iran nuclear deal that Mr. Trump abandoned in 2018, as long as the Iranians also came back into compliance.	Just about all of the candidates said they would re-enter the Iran nuclear deal that Mr. Trump abandoned in 2018, as long as the Iranians also came back into compliance.
But they were divided on pursuing Mr. Trump’s leader-to-leader diplomacy with North Korea.	But they were divided on pursuing Mr. Trump’s leader-to-leader diplomacy with North Korea.
Mr. Biden views the one-on-one negotiations with Kim Jong-un as a form of reward for a dictator, one in which Mr. Trump has gotten nothing in return because the North has continued to build up its nuclear arsenal and its missile program. “As Kim advances his ability to hit the United States — and anywhere else in the world, for that matter — we can’t rely on Trump’s tweets or threats to keep us safe,” he said. Mr. Biden did say he was open to meeting with Kim if it wasn’t just for show.	Mr. Biden views the one-on-one negotiations with Kim Jong-un as a form of reward for a dictator, one in which Mr. Trump has gotten nothing in return because the North has continued to build up its nuclear arsenal and its missile program. “As Kim advances his ability to hit the United States — and anywhere else in the world, for that matter — we can’t rely on Trump’s tweets or threats to keep us safe,” he said. Mr. Biden did say he was open to meeting with Kim if it wasn’t just for show.
Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Klobuchar agreed that they would halt the one-on-one meetings. But Mr. Sanders and Mr. Yang said they would keep the talks going, but insisted they would get concrete results.	Mr. Bloomberg and Ms. Klobuchar agreed that they would halt the one-on-one meetings. But Mr. Sanders and Mr. Yang said they would keep the talks going, but insisted they would get concrete results.
Ms. Warren said she was open to such talks only “if it advances substantive negotiations, but not as a vanity project.” Any meeting with Mr. Kim, she added, would be “part of a clear strategy, with substantive agreement already reached at the working level, and developed in close coordination with our allies and partners.”	Ms. Warren said she was open to such talks only “if it advances substantive negotiations, but not as a vanity project.” Any meeting with Mr. Kim, she added, would be “part of a clear strategy, with substantive agreement already reached at the working level, and developed in close coordination with our allies and partners.”
The candidates described their views on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before Mr. Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, announced a radically new plan that would make permanent all the Jewish settlements in disputed lands and let Israel — and Israel alone — declare Jerusalem its capital.	The candidates described their views on how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before Mr. Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, announced a radically new plan that would make permanent all the Jewish settlements in disputed lands and let Israel — and Israel alone — declare Jerusalem its capital.
The Democrats generally embraced an older idea: that Israel should return largely to its pre-1967 borders, with agreed-upon land swaps to reflect some modern realities of how control has shifted on the ground.	The Democrats generally embraced an older idea: that Israel should return largely to its pre-1967 borders, with agreed-upon land swaps to reflect some modern realities of how control has shifted on the ground.
But only Mr. Steyer said he would reverse Mr. Trump’s decision — widely criticized at the time — to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Sanders, though, made his agreement to keep the embassy there contingent on Israeli behavior, saying moving it back to Tel Aviv “would be on the table if Israel continues to take steps, such as settlement expansion, expulsions and home demolitions, that undermine the chances for a peace agreement.”	But only Mr. Steyer said he would reverse Mr. Trump’s decision — widely criticized at the time — to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Sanders, though, made his agreement to keep the embassy there contingent on Israeli behavior, saying moving it back to Tel Aviv “would be on the table if Israel continues to take steps, such as settlement expansion, expulsions and home demolitions, that undermine the chances for a peace agreement.”
Most striking was the divide among the candidates on whether to put conditions on military aid to Israel — something Mr. Sanders, Mr. Steyer and Ms. Warren indicated they would consider if Israel continued to build settlements in disputed territory.	Most striking was the divide among the candidates on whether to put conditions on military aid to Israel — something Mr. Sanders, Mr. Steyer and Ms. Warren indicated they would consider if Israel continued to build settlements in disputed territory.
Keeping a two-state solution viable “may mean finding ways to apply pressure and create consequences for problematic behavior by both parties, as previous Democratic and Republican presidents have done,” Ms. Warren said. “Today, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and the increasing normalization of proposals for Israel to annex parts or all of the West Bank are the most immediate dangers to the two-state solution.”	Keeping a two-state solution viable “may mean finding ways to apply pressure and create consequences for problematic behavior by both parties, as previous Democratic and Republican presidents have done,” Ms. Warren said. “Today, the continued expansion of Israeli settlements and the increasing normalization of proposals for Israel to annex parts or all of the West Bank are the most immediate dangers to the two-state solution.”
Of the Democratic candidates, only Mr. Biden has been involved in a critical judgment call about whether to use cyberweapons against another country: He was a participant in the decisions over a covert attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment center at Natanz.	Of the Democratic candidates, only Mr. Biden has been involved in a critical judgment call about whether to use cyberweapons against another country: He was a participant in the decisions over a covert attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment center at Natanz.
So it was interesting that Mr. Biden embraced the idea — enacted in 2018 in an order issued by Mr. Trump — that United States Cyber Command can launch certain attacks without the explicit presidential approval required for, say, launching a nuclear weapon.	So it was interesting that Mr. Biden embraced the idea — enacted in 2018 in an order issued by Mr. Trump — that United States Cyber Command can launch certain attacks without the explicit presidential approval required for, say, launching a nuclear weapon.
While some cyberattacks could involve “such a significant impact on civilian targets that a presidential order is appropriate,” he said, “others may be so precise or contained that a presidential order is unnecessary.”	While some cyberattacks could involve “such a significant impact on civilian targets that a presidential order is appropriate,” he said, “others may be so precise or contained that a presidential order is unnecessary.”
Only Mr. Bennet agreed with him.	Only Mr. Bennet agreed with him.
By contrast, Ms. Warren argued that presidential approval was vital and “the same laws, values and oversight under which the United States pursues military action should be consistently applied across domains.”	By contrast, Ms. Warren argued that presidential approval was vital and “the same laws, values and oversight under which the United States pursues military action should be consistently applied across domains.”