The early start to this presidential election should give the public, the media, and others with serious policy questions, more time than usual to penetrate a candidate’s layered defenses of vague rhetoric, tightly controlled access, and professional flakery. Alas, it is too early to report success in getting many foreign policy answers, particularly for the nitty-gritty issues of the day. For many, these positions often simply do not exist.
Such is the case, it seems, with the Bush administration’s plans to deploy theater missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, a policy emerging as a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations. Evidence this week’s test of (and associated boasting about) Russia’s new RS-24 missile(Deutsche Welle), a weapon which Russia’s military says “reinforces the military potential of the strategic forces to overcome anti-missile defense systems.” Russian President Vladimir Putin chooses to ignore White House protestations that the systems in Europe would be aimed not at Russia’s vast arsenal, but at small, unpredictable launches by the likes of Iran or, say, al-Qaeda (NPR).
Perhaps not surprisingly, John McCain comes closest to addressing the issue on his website saying he “strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses).” Indeed, he goes on to say they not only would be useful to deter launches by Iran or North Korea, but also “to hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.” No wonder Russia ignores the White House. Two other Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani, support maintaining or expanding the broader National Missile Defense plans of the Bush administration, yet have not tunneled down to the European issue.
The Democrats, too, lack detail. Universally, the leading candidates criticize (and many voted against) national missile defense. No position on the European missiles nor Russia is anywhere to be found in the “Issues” section of Hillary Clinton’s website. (She did mention Russia in passing, however, at a speech at CFR in 2006) .
Democrat John Edwards, who cochaired a CFR Independent Task Force Report on Russia in 2006, has addressed the need to be firmer with Moscow, most recently at an appearance at CFR’s headquarters in New York last week. Again, though, no word on the European missiles – just a blanket opposition to the concept of missile defense as being “costly and unlikely to work.”
Barack Obama’s position remains even more vague. In spite of his involvement in nonproliferation issues
with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IND), an Obama policy mentor and foreign policy expert, Obama appears to be treading carefully even on the broader issue. He did, however, support “total commitment” to U.S. funds and assistance for Israel’s native Arrow anti-missile system.
Some candidates arrived in the campaign with fairly long records on foreign policy – long-serving Senate members in particular (See our Election Issues Guides). Votes can be tracked, and statements Googled, for many of these politicians. Even among the legislators, however, only the broadest outlines of what might be called “grand strategy” exist. Where specifics can be gleaned, the differences between candidates often diminish.
On Iraq, for instance, the leading Republicans generally back the surge and giving the administration more time to make progress. Leading Democrats generally are of two minds: leave soon, or begin phased withdrawals soon that move toward the exit sometime in the next 18 months. Hopefully, the lack of candidate clarity on the European missiles won’t take that long.
