John McCain. Image Credit: twinkletoez’s photostream.

Dave Schuler, proprietor of The Glittering Eye, regular contributor to Outside the Beltway, and one-time contributor to this magazine, has proposed a break from the non-issues and personal attacks that characterize the election campaigns during what is usually the long, long month of October. Instead, Dave has suggested that online pundits take the radical step of actually discussing the issues this week. We here at Heretical Ideas will oblige, using the same schedule this week to discuss topics as Schuler proposes.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008: Foreign policy
Wednesday, October 8, 2008: Fiscal policy
Thursday, October 9, 2008: Economic policy
Friday, October 10, 2008: Health care
Saturday, October 11, 2008: Energy policy

Today’s topic is one that both McCain and Obama have staked out radically different positions on: foreign policy. They have different ideas, different strategies, and radically different priorities. It’s telling, for example, that Barack Obama has a page devote to his policies towards different regions of the world, in addition to a page devoted to defense and Iraq, McCain has only pages devoted the latter two. It is equally telling that neither has a page devoted to policies surrounding Afghanistan, China, or the European Union. However, seeing as how one could easily write a book about the differences between two candidates, I am going to limit my discussion of foreign policy to five areas of importance to me: free trade, Russia, Europe, China, and nuclear proliferation. (I am ignoring Middle East and Terrorism issues because, let’s face it–everybody knows what the differences between the two are there.)

Free Trade

On trade policy, John McCain is definitely the superior candidate to Barack Obama. John McCain is an unabashed free trader and that is the rare issue in which he has not changed his mind over the course of his career. He has one of the best free-trade voting records in Congress, and I frankly have little to complain about him. Free trade is the cornerstone of any great economy, and there is no question that McCain is on the side of free trade.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a much more problematic approach to trade issues. He spoke out against CAFTA, and has openly stated his desire to renegotiate portions of NAFTA to make it “fairer”–namely, by exporting U.S. labor and environmental standards. Additionally, a good deal of Obama’s advertising has had a bit of a xenophobic twinge to it, most notably this one, which protests the fact that McCain owns foreign-manufactured cars. Note to the Obama campaign: so do I. On the bright side, although the President does have a great deal of control over foreign policy, trade issues is probably the area of foreign policy where the President has the least amount of influence. Congress is heavily involved in trade issues, and the United States is also greatly constrained by its current treaties, such as NAFTA and its membership in the WTO. So hopefully Obama wouldn’t be able to do too much damage here.

Russia

Over the past few years, Russia has gained enormously in power and influence, anchored by Vladimir Putin’s consolidation of political power and Russia’s enormous economic position as an exporter of energy. A few weeks ago, Russia’s invasion of Georgia put our policy towards Russia front and center. On the basics, though, Barack Obama and John McCain have virtually the same policy towards Russia–align other European nations against Russian expansionism and admit more former Soviet Republics into NATO. Let me point out that on this last point, both candidates have a deeply stupid policy. In particular, the desire of both candidates to admit Georgia into NATO. There’s not only no national interest in allowing Georgia’s membership, but such a move would be unnecessarily antagonistic towards Russia. Membership in NATO shouldn’t be doled out like Halloween candy. This is not to say that we should do nothing in the face of Russian expansionism, but granting NATO membership risks embroiling the United States into a war with Russia, which I think everyone can agree is a bad idea.

One major policy difference between McCain and Obama on Russia, however, is McCain’s stated desire to have Russia removed from the G8. This is not only unnecessarily antagonistic towards Russia, whose support we need to deal with Iran and other issues, it’s also a move that is opposed by every other member of the G8. Obama has spoken out against this proposition, which gives Obama a slight edge on Russian policy.

Europe

On paper, Barack Obama and John McCain don’t have a lot of policy differences towards Europe. In real life, however, there is a big difference between them. And that is simply that Obama is much, much more popular in Europe than is John McCain. This may not see like a big deal until you think of it this way: the countries in Europe are democracies, which mean that their governments are more responsive to popular pressure. Obama’s enormous popularity in Europe is an advantage in the sense that it will make it politically easier for European governments to cooperate with the United States. That’s not a bad thing.

Moreover, McCain recently embarrassed himself in a slight radio gaffe in which he mistakenly said that he would not meet with the Spanish Prime Minister. However, rather than laugh off the mistake and reiterate the United States’ commitment to its NATO ally, Spain, John McCain compounded the error by refusing to acknowledge it. This lack of acknowledgment has led to an uproar among the Spanish press and chilled already strained relations between the United States and Spain. This type of misstep doesn’t speak well for McCain’s ability to secure cooperation in Europe.

China

As China’s economy grows and its influence strengthens, U.S. policy towards China remains ever important. On China policy, though, there’s very little difference between McCain and Obama, and what differences do exist are primarily differences of priority, not scope or goals. Both Obama and McCain have condemned China’s crackdowns in Tibet, both support the One China policy while given support and encouragement to the government of Taiwan, and both support continuing trade with China.

Where they differ really has more to do with their personal priorities. John McCain is focused on curtailing Chinese expansionism, calling on the Chinese government to provide greater transparency towards Chinese military buildups. John McCain has also called upon the Chinese government to exercise its influence in the Sudan and in Burma–a position that Obama shares. While I support convincing China to use its influence to curtail genocide, I find that McCain’s demand for fuller transparency in military affairs to be a bit hypocritical. If the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt that McCain would respond well to “foreign bullying.”

Obama’s focus on China trends more to the economic. He has advocated exerting pressure on China to more quickly revalue the yuan, even to the point of imposing trade sanctions if China doesn’t comply quickly enough. In the aftermath of the lead in Chinese toys scandal last year, Obama advocated cutting off toy imports from China completely. These policies are more meddlesome in Chinese internal affairs than I think are necessary. And certainly while the safety of toys was a concern at the time, a complete ban is just overkill. Unnecessary to solve the problem. So on the issue of China, who’s the better candidate is pretty much a wash–they both have their good and bad points. Neither candidate represents a significant change from the status quo.

Nuclear Proliferation

Barack Obama and General David Petraeus.
Image Credit: Staff Sgt. Lorie Jewell

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the primary foreign policy concerns of our time, and here is an area where John McCain and Barack Obama do have some significant differences. While both candidates speak to the need to reduce nuclear weapons, it’s actually Barack Obama who, despite his short time in the Senate, has a better record on this issue than John McCain.

One of the first major pieces of legislation that Barack Obama was involved with was the Lugar-Obama Non-Proliferation Act, which, in the words of its primary sponsors, Richard Lugar and Barack Obama:

These vast numbers of unused conventional weapons, particularly shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles that can hit civilian airliners, pose a major security risk to America and democracies everywhere. That’s why we have introduced legislation to seek out and destroy surplus and unguarded stocks of conventional arms in Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

Our bill would launch a major nonproliferation initiative by addressing the growing threat from unsecured conventional weapons and by bolstering a key line of defense against weapons of mass destruction. Modeled after the successful Nunn-Lugar program to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons, the Lugar-Obama bill would seek to build cooperative relationships with willing countries.

The bill passed in 2006 and was signed into law in 2007. McCain voted for this bill, but it was Obama and Lugar who did the heavy lifting.

One area of disagreement between Obama and McCain on proliferation issues is the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which bans all military and civilian nuclear detonations for any and all purposes. This treaty first came to the Senate in 1999, where McCain voted against it (along with a majority of the Senate). Barack Obama, by contrast, has stated that he will pursue the ratification of this treaty if he is elected President.

Additionally, Barack Obama is opposed to new nuclear weapons development, while McCain has offered some limited support for such a venture. The problem with new nuclear weapons development and our refusal to ratify the Test Ban Treaty is that it makes it more difficult for the United States to persuade other countries that they should not be developing nuclear weapons. This is simply because such moves completely undermine our credibility on these issues. By being steadily against nuclear proliferation in all forms, Obama should make it easier to conduct negotiations with countries pursuing nuclear technology in violation of international norms.

Conclusion

While McCain and Obama do share similarities on some foreign policy issues, the fact is that their methods and approaches in many cases are radically different. In most areas, such as our policy towards Russia, nuclear proliferation, and Europe, Obama is the better candidate. On China, though, both candidates are basically in agreement with the status quo. And on free trade issues, McCain is the superior candidate. Overall, though, Obama has the superior foreign policy approach–he’s more diplomatic, thoughtful, and popular (yes, that’s a factor in diplomacy) than McCain, and he simply has better policies than McCain on most significant foreign policy issues.