Why Kerry's Alright: "progressive internationalism"

\begin{scavenge}

February 09, 2004
'It's Time to Get Over It'
John Kerry Tells Antiwar Movement to Move On
By Mark Hand

Researchers and investigative reporters are fascinated with the
neoconservatives, that group of American empire peddlers who turned George
W. Bush into a junkie war criminal. A similar group, the New Democrats,
has been pushing its own dangerous brand of U.S. hegemony but with much
less fanfare.

The leading mouthpiece for the New Democrats' radical interventionist
program could be our next president. John Kerry, the frontrunner in the
quest for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, has been promoting
a foreign policy perspective called "progressive internationalism." It's a
concept concocted by establishment Democrats seeking to convince potential
backers in the corporate and political world that, if installed in the
White House, they would preserve U.S. power and influence around the
world, but in a kinder, gentler fashion than the current administration.

In the domestic battle to captain the American empire, the neocons have in
their corner the Project for a New American Century while the New
Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute. Come November, who will
get your vote? Coke or Pepsi?

In fall 2000, PNAC released Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy,
Forces and Resources for a New Century. It's a blueprint for "maintaining
global U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and
shaping the international security order in line with American principles
and interests."

In fall 2003, members of PPI joined with other tough-minded Democrats to
unveil Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security
Strategy, a 19-page manifesto that calls for "the bold exercise of
American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international
institutions that share a common commitment to liberal values."

The New Democrats don't begrudge the Bush administration for invading
Iraq. They take issue with the Bush administration's strategy of refusing
to invite key members of the international community to the invasion until
it was too late. The neocons' unilateralist approach, the New Democrats
believe, will ultimately harm U.S. political and economic dominance around
the world.

"We are confident that a new Democratic strategy, grounded in the party's
tradition of muscular internationalism, can keep Americans safer than the
Republicans' go-it-alone policy, which has alienated our natural allies
and overstretched our resources," the New Democrats say in their foreign
policy manifesto. "We aim to rebuild the moral foundation of U.S. global
leadership by harnessing America's awesome power to universal values of
liberal democracy. A new progressive internationalism can point the way."

Proponents of "progressive internationalism" are a lock to control
leadership positions at the State Department and key civilian posts at the
Pentagon in a John Kerry administration. How do we know this? Because
these New Democrats obviously ghostwrote Kerry's campaign book, A Call to
Service: My Vision for A Better America. Place the Progressive
Internationalism manifesto and Kerry's chapter on foreign policy side by
side and you'll immediately notice the similarities.

On page 40 of In A Call to Service, Kerry writes: "The time has come to
renew that tradition and revive a bold vision of progressive
internationalism." What is this tradition to which Kerry refers? As he
describes it, Democrats need to honor "the tough-minded strategy of
international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in
the two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the cold war."

Now, turn to page 3 of the New Democrats' manifesto. It reads:

    "As Democrats, we are proud of our party's tradition of tough-minded
internationalism and strong record in defending America. Presidents
Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman led the United
States to victory in two world wars and designed the post-war
international institutions that have been a cornerstone of global security
and prosperity ever since. President Truman forged democratic alliances
such as NATO that eventually triumphed in the Cold War. President Kennedy
epitomized America's commitment to "the survival and success of liberty."

Like the neocons, Kerry was not impressed by France's stance against the
U.S. invasion of Iraq. On page 51 of his book, he writes:

    "I hope by the time you read this book that the UN has been usefully
employed as a partner in the reconstruction of Iraq and that Jacque Chirac
has ceased his foolish rebellion against the very idea of the Atlantic
Alliance. America, which has always shown magnanimity in victory, should
in turn meet repentant Europeans halfway, not ratchet up the badgering
unilateralism that fed European fears in the first place."

There's much to digest in this paragraph. Perhaps the most interesting
nugget is Kerry's statement that the United States should "meet repentant
Europeans halfway." Hmmm, John, could you elaborate on what sins the
Europeans committed for which they must repent?

On page 50, Kerry details his beef with Old Europe:

    "The Bush administration is by no means the only culprit in the
breakdown in U.S.-UN relations over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia never
supported or offered a feasible policy to verify that UN resolutions on
Iraq were actually being carried out. ... Our British, Spanish and Eastern
European coalition allies are eager to rebuild European unity."

Throughout the foreign policy sections of the book, Kerry does his best to
convince the reader that he would not run from his role as war criminal in
chief if elected president.

Perhaps the most repulsive section of the book is where Kerry discusses
the Vietnam War and the antiwar movement. On page 42, Kerry writes:

    "I could never agree with those in the antiwar movement who dismissed
our troops as war criminals or our country as the villain in the drama.
That's one reason, in fact, that I eventually parted ways with the VVAW
[Vietnam Veterans Against the War] organizations and instead helped found
the Vietnam Veterans of America."

If the United States was not a villain in the "drama" of the Vietnam war,
then who is to blame for the million-plus Vietnamese who were killed
during the 20-year period of naked U.S. aggression that ended in 1975?
Surely, John, you don't wish to blame certain communist dead-enders in
Vietnam for the carnage?

On the next page, Kerry informs his reader that it's time we stop
questioning U.S. foreign policy intentions:

    "As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest
movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of
that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception,
not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth
century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of
that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose
involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than
ideology and legend."

This last passage is probably the most unsettling part of Kerry's book and
one that every advocate of the Anyone-But-Bush 2004 election strategy
should read before heading to the polling station in November.

In this one passage, Kerry seeks to justify the millions of people
slaughtered by the U.S. military and its surrogates during the twentieth
century, suggests that concern about U.S. war crimes in Vietnam is no
longer necessary, and dismisses the antiwar movement as the work of
know-nothings.

Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as
gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White
House. The only noteworthy difference between the two groups battling for
power in Washington is that the neocons are willing to pursue their
imperial ambitions in full view of the international community, while the
progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden
behind the cloak of multilateralism.

-- 
Mark Hand is editor of Press Action.
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/