ICAR News Network - Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

ICAR News Network

America's Next Foreign Policy: How Can CR Fit In?
By Rephael T. Houston, ICAR Certificate Student
Posted: 08/01/07

In the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, presidential candidates, Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, a Republican, presented their respective views on “America’s next foreign policy”. Although their views differ, vis-à-vis the scope of threats to the U.S., there seems to be consensus on the need to increase military ground force levels and spending overall. On this matter, conflict resolution theory can inform their policies. Practitioners should make every effort to ensure that - no matter whom wins - conflict resolution theory informs the next President’s policies. Thus, an understanding of how the candidates frame the challenges to U.S. security is necessary in order to map out points of entry.

Obama’s view of the challenges that America must face include controlling weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, “weak states”, “rising powers”, global warming, and withdrawal from Iraq. The list is vast and complex with many intersecting points. For example, he proposes that redeploying forces in Iraq will aid the global war on terror and the Middle East peace process. Global warming is seen as a menace that could out match other challenges. “Rising powers” – China, Brazil, India, Nigeria & South Africa – are seen as both challenges and opportunities in maintaining an international order. Weapons of mass destruction are seen as a wildcard that must be checked.

Romney places a very high priority on combating terrorism. He views the outcome of battles with “Islamic extremists” as a challenge comparable to World War II. The U.S. presence in Iraq is viewed under the spectrum of regional stability and as the key front in the global war on terror. Dependence on oil-producing states is seen as a major weakness that should be eliminated, producing a side benefit of greenhouse gas reduction. Federal institutions that are designed to protect us are seen as threat because of their lack of cooperation with each other. In his view, civilian capabilities that are ineffective can aid U.S. opponents.

Obama and Romney have very sharp and distinct pictures of the world. However, the room for conflict resolution to inform their policy still exists. Obama’s policy prescription for his challenges will require a ripe soil to plant democratic institutions. For example, a point of entry into his policy toward building democratic institutions globally could be through peacebuilding as a path to democracy. Many of the practices to bring healing and reconciliation could be trumpeted along with the goal of supporting democratic institutions in “weak states.” Allowing for the transformative process of peacebuilding in divided communities could become a building block for establishing democratic institutions – i.e. peace with justice.

Romney seeks engagement with major parties in the Islamic world to combat terrorism. A road toward a “Partnership for Prosperity and Progress”, as Romney describes it, would revitalize educational centers, health services, financial institutions, and jurisprudence in the region. The ideas behind the “Partnership” would have to be rooted in a local context and accepted by local communities. There would be many opportunities to use multi-track diplomacy as well as establishing dialogues between all parties.

While Obama’s and Romney’s views on the challenges faced by the U.S. are dissimilar, they both give opportunity for conflict resolution theory to come into practice. Just as both see it as a forgone conclusion to have a strong military with increased troop levels and budgets, the necessity for tools of conflict resolution can gain greater traction. Also they agree that force alone will not triumph over the challenges ahead, but the fierceness of their arguments for more conflict resolution practitioners remains faint. The voice of support for conflict resolution methods will grow only when conflict resolution practitioners are more vocal about what they can offer policy makers.

News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /




ICAR News Network America's Next Foreign Policy: How Can CR Fit In? By Rephael T. Houston, ICAR Certificate Student Posted: 08/01/07 In the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, presidential candidates, Barack Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, a Republican, presented their respective views on “America’s next foreign policy”. Although their views differ, vis-à-vis the scope of threats to the U.S., there seems to be consensus on the need to increase military ground force levels and spending overall. On this matter, conflict resolution theory can inform their policies. Practitioners should make every effort to ensure that - no matter whom wins - conflict resolution theory informs the next President’s policies. Thus, an understanding of how the candidates frame the challenges to U.S. security is necessary in order to map out points of entry. Obama’s view of the challenges that America must face include controlling weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, “weak states”, “rising powers”, global warming, and withdrawal from Iraq. The list is vast and complex with many intersecting points. For example, he proposes that redeploying forces in Iraq will aid the global war on terror and the Middle East peace process. Global warming is seen as a menace that could out match other challenges. “Rising powers” – China, Brazil, India, Nigeria & South Africa – are seen as both challenges and opportunities in maintaining an international order. Weapons of mass destruction are seen as a wildcard that must be checked. Romney places a very high priority on combating terrorism. He views the outcome of battles with “Islamic extremists” as a challenge comparable to World War II. The U.S. presence in Iraq is viewed under the spectrum of regional stability and as the key front in the global war on terror. Dependence on oil-producing states is seen as a major weakness that should be eliminated, producing a side benefit of greenhouse gas reduction. Federal institutions that are designed to protect us are seen as threat because of their lack of cooperation with each other. In his view, civilian capabilities that are ineffective can aid U.S. opponents. Obama and Romney have very sharp and distinct pictures of the world. However, the room for conflict resolution to inform their policy still exists. Obama’s policy prescription for his challenges will require a ripe soil to plant democratic institutions. For example, a point of entry into his policy toward building democratic institutions globally could be through peacebuilding as a path to democracy. Many of the practices to bring healing and reconciliation could be trumpeted along with the goal of supporting democratic institutions in “weak states.” Allowing for the transformative process of peacebuilding in divided communities could become a building block for establishing democratic institutions – i.e. peace with justice. Romney seeks engagement with major parties in the Islamic world to combat terrorism. A road toward a “Partnership for Prosperity and Progress”, as Romney describes it, would revitalize educational centers, health services, financial institutions, and jurisprudence in the region. The ideas behind the “Partnership” would have to be rooted in a local context and accepted by local communities. There would be many opportunities to use multi-track diplomacy as well as establishing dialogues between all parties. While Obama’s and Romney’s views on the challenges faced by the U.S. are dissimilar, they both give opportunity for conflict resolution theory to come into practice. Just as both see it as a forgone conclusion to have a strong military with increased troop levels and budgets, the necessity for tools of conflict resolution can gain greater traction. Also they agree that force alone will not triumph over the challenges ahead, but the fierceness of their arguments for more conflict resolution practitioners remains faint. The voice of support for conflict resolution methods will grow only when conflict resolution practitioners are more vocal about what they can offer policy makers. News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /		About ICAR Student Information Prospective Students Faculty and Staff Alumni Career Services Academic Programs Library ICAR In The News Events Technology Resources ICAR Publications Point Of View Center Center for World Religions, Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution