George W. Bush on Foreign Policy President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)

Sub-sections under Foreign Policy:
• China
• Internationalism
• Russia
• Other issues under Foreign Policy

Millennium Challenge Account: no more money down a rat hole

Laura's signature issue: women's rights in Afghanistan

The day after the address aired, [some passersby said], "Thank you so much for speaking for Afghan women." I was stunned. And for the first time, I realized the degree to which I had a unique forum as first lady. At that moment, it was not that I found my voice. Instead, it was as if my voice had found me.

New approach in Africa: partnership instead of paternalism

I changed my mind on need for Afghan nation-building

At the time, I worried about overextending our military by undertaking peacekeeping missions as we had in Bosnia and Somalia. But after 9/11, I changed my mind. Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission. We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral obligation to leave behind something better. We also had a strategic interest in helping the Afghan people build a free society.

UN is cumbersome, bureaucratic, & inefficient

I listened but made no commitment. I considered the UN to be cumbersome, bureaucratic, and inefficient. I was concerned that a fund composed of contributions from different countries with different interests would not spend taxpayer money in a focused or effective way.

Nevertheless, Colin Powell and HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson recommended that I support the Global Fund with an initial pledge of $200 million. They felt it would send a signal for America to be the first contributor. Their persistence overcame my skepticism. I announced our commitment in May 2001."This morning, we have made a good beginning," I said in my speech. I didn't add that I had plans to do more.

Bush Doctrine's fourth prong is Freedom Agenda

The freedom agenda, as I called the fourth prong, was both idealistic and realistic. It was idealistic in that freedom is a universal gift from Almighty God. It was realistic because freedom is the most practical way to protect our country in the long run. As I said in my Second Inaugural Address, "America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

2006: Hamas promised clean government, not war with Israel

In Jan. 2006, the truth was that Palestinians were tired of Fatah's corruption. Hamas won 74 of 132 seats. Some interpreted the results as a setback for peace. I wasn't so sure. Hamas had run on a platform of clean government and efficient publi service, not war with Israel.

Hamas also benefited from Fatah's poorly run campaign. The election made clear that Fatah had to modernize its party. It also forced a decision within Hamas. Would it fulfill its promise to govern as a legitimate party, or would it revert to violence?

In June 2007, the military wing of Hamas intervened, responding to the advance of freedom with violence. We supported an Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

9-11 insight: new struggle against global totalitarianism

Atop a crushed fire truck, amidst the rubble of shattered towers, Bush showed moral clarity and courage that were to prove vital to confronting totalitarianism. His critical insight was that Western ideas of freedom, democracy, and open markets provided a bulwark against this new tyranny. So in addition to routing the Taliban and destroying al-Qaeda, he sought to plant democracy firmly in Afghanistan and Iraq, the historic center of the Middle East. He saw that by promoting freedom, the US could give millions of Muslims a compelling reason to stand with us in this struggle. Such conviction is too rare in leaders: I am confident his actions will be judged by history as brave and right.

OpEd: No focus on Latin America despite campaign rhetoric

That summer, George W. Bush said Latin American had been a mere "afterthought" to the Clinton administration. "Those who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America itself. And those who ignore our hemisphere do not fully understand American interests."

The future president's "chief foreign policy adviser," Condoleezza Rice, said his guiding philosophy would be, "You start with strong neighbors and reach out from there."

Despite the "strong neighbors" the Bush-Cheney team had another view. In 2002, President Bush nominated the polarizing Otto Reich as secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs. Reich was a minor figure implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980's. After launching the war in Iraq in 2003, the president paid little notice to Latin America.

History’s verdict takes time to reveal itself

Define a Palestinian state, at peace with Israel, in 2008

Most Americans question whether to be in UN at all

OpEd: Supported creedal nation, not traditional nation

If we are a creedal nation, united by a commitment to democracy, equality, and liberty, with a mandate and mission to impose those ideas and ideals on mankind, we shall have a foreign policy like that of George W. Bush. But if we are a traditional nation, our national interests will be traditional: the defense of our land and the preservation of the lives and liberty of our people. And we will regard as enemies those who imperil what we hold most dear.

How we define who we are defines our interests, and how we define our interests tells us whom we must fight--and whom we need not fight.

Change food aid rules to allow more non-US materials

Unfortunately, farm groups and even some charities opposed the idea at first and for two years it's gone nowhere in Congress.

Opposed expanding Israeli settlements in West Bank

Israeli plans to retain far-reaching West Bank settlements will likely spell the death knell for prospects for the "road map for peace," the keystone of President George W. Bush's Middle East policy.

$1.2B for 5-year campaign against malaria in Africa

The annual US foreign aid budget for fighting malaria, for instance, has been $90 million, but 95% of the money is being spent on consultants and less than 5% on mosquito nets, drugs, and insecticide spraying to fight the disease. Senator Sam Brownback complained about this policy, and received only "vague descriptions and math that doesn't add up," and demanded an audit by the government accountability office.

Iranian regime must not be permitted to gain nuclear weapons

Fight disease and spread hope in hopeless lands

Made unpopular decisions for great American values

A: I made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I recognize that taking Saddam out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. I made some decisions on Israel that’s unpopular. I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops can be brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. I don’t think we ought to join that. That was unpopular. And so what I’m telling you is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decision because you think they’re right. We’ll continue to reach out. There’s 30 nations involved in Iraq; some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love America. Sometimes they don’t like the decisions made by America, but I don’t think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing.

Allies are dealing with Iran and North Korea with America

Free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want

We ought to be working with the African Union

BUSH: I agree with Kerry that we shouldn’t be committing troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so-precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out. My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.

US establishes UN Democracy Fund

Today, I’ve outlined a broad agenda to advance human dignity, and enhance the security of all of us. The defeat of terror, the protection of human rights, the spread of prosperity, the advance of democracy-these causes, these ideals, call us to great work in the world. Each of us alone can only do so much. Together, we can accomplish so much more.

Allies deserve the respect of all Americans

Increased foreign aid by 65% from 2002 to 2006

But this is unpersuasive to a White House that committed to increase foreign aid by 65% between 2002 and 2006. Pres. Bush appears now to agree with the Left--that one measures true compassion solely by the amount of tax dollars one is willing to expend.

The twin altarpieces of Bush's foreign aid approach are a 5-year, $15 billion program to fight AIDS in Africa and a Millennial Challenge Account to reward regimes that pursue sound policies. Virtue is no longer its own reward. But where in the Constitution is the president empowered to take tax dollars from the US citizens to reward foreign regimes for good behavior?

US is single surviving model of human progress

By "freedom," the president means America's concept of freedom: The right to worship as we desire. But to Muslim believers, Christian missionaries have no right to proselytize in their land. In some Islamic countries, to attempt to convert Muslims is punishable by death.

If President Bush believes ours is the "single surviving model of human progress," and our ideas of freedom "apply fully to the entire Islamic world," we are headed for endless wars with an Islamic world where the faith grows militant and peoples are repelled by the social, cultural, and moral decadence they see in America and the West.

Foreign affairs is interpersonal leadership, not knowledge

With Bush, Rice said, “The worst thing you can do is tell him you’re going to do something and then not do it.” The next worst thing is to waste his time beating around the bush. “He is very straightforward himself and tends to like straightforward people,” Rice said. “You don’t want to spend a long time constructing a baroque argument for him. I’ve watched him with many foreign leaders. His best relationship with foreign leaders are when he feels like they are being as straightforward with him as he is with them. He can do that past language barriers. He can sense the body language.”

1994: Supported $25B Mexico bailout

The risks were considerable, but I had confidence in Mexico's new president, Ernesto Zedillo. Besides, we simply couldn't let Mexico fall without trying to help. In addition to the economic problems it would cause both for us and for the Mexicans, we would be sending a terrible signal of selfishness and shortsightedness throughout Latin America.

I called the congressional leaders and explained the situation. All of them pledged their support. Several governors were also supportive, including George W. Bush, whose state would be hardest hit if the Mexican economy collapsed.

Congress would not pass the bill so we ended up providing the money to Mexico out of the Exchange Stabilization Fund.

Full transition to democratic Iraq by Jan. 2005

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq.
1. transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens.
2. establish the stability and security that democracy requires.
3. rebuild that nation’s infrastructure.
4. enlist additional international support.
5. free national elections no later than next January.

Support for Israel tied evangelicals to Jewish community

Bush moved directly to the point. "I am a Christian," he declared, "but I believe with the psalmist that the Lord God of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps. We will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of the most important friends is the State of Israel. A top foreign policy priority of the administration is the safety and the security of Israel. My administration will be steadfast in supporting Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray."

It was a general statement, but a reaffirmation of America's continued support for Israel nonetheless. The president would never say such a thing and then let Israel flounder.

National Endowment for Democracy in the Middle East

I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again. As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends.

So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror and expect a higher standard from our friend. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy and to focus its new work on the development of free elections and free markets, free press and free labor unions in the Middle East.

Tilt back toward Israel

Vietnam: Trade better for human rights than sanctions

A: I support the trade agreement with Vietnam. I believe expanded trade with Vietnam will help the forces of economic and political reform take root and grow. At the same time, we must make clear to the Vietnamese government that we expect them to cooperate fully with our efforts to obtain the fullest possible accounting of missing servicemen in Vietnam. Like all Americans, I want to see improved human rights, and living and working conditions worldwide. The best way to address these issues is not through unilateral trade sanctions, but through multilateral agreements. The primary goal of our trade policy should be to open markets abroad because the better way to raise living and working standards is to increase trade.

Supported force in Mideast & Balkans, not Haiti & Somalia

Africa’s important but not a priority; no nation-building

BUSH: Africa’s important. And we’ve got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade. It’s an important continent. But there’s got to be priorities. And the Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons as is Europe and the Far East, and our own hemisphere. Those are my four top priorities should I be the president. It’s not to say we won’t be engaged [in Africa], and working hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity [like in Rwanda]. I thought the best example of handling a [genocide] situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians; support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.

Keep troops in Korea & NATO; not in Haiti & Balkans

I mentioned the Balkans. Haiti is another example. I supported the administration in Colombia. It is in our interests to have a peaceful Colombia. We need to have a military presence in the Korean peninsula not only to keep the peace in the peninsula but to keep regional stability. And we need to keep a presence in NATO. But the use of the military needs to be in our vital interest. The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious.

Puerto Rico: Back statehood if majority votes for it

Both Bush and Gore have declined to take a position on whether Puerto Rico should participate in the election, noting that the matter is before the courts. Both candidates have identical positions on Puerto Rico, saying they would back statehood if a majority of voters on the island support it. Both campaigns have taken steps to prepare for the possibility of a campaign on the island, signing up volunteers and organizers.

Will keep sanctions against Cuba

US will be a friend to Latin American democracies

Patrol borders, but also invest in Latin America

Bush would:
• Ask Congress for $100 million to provide no-collateral loans to the poor.
• Hire more border patrol agents and reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service to crack down on illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
• Establish an “American Fellows Program” in which young men and women from those nations would be invited to work in the U.S. government.
• Call on Latin American governments to lift barriers of over-regulation that prevent the poor from creating businesses.

Africa: Rally world to help AIDS, but not with US funds

Mexico: Free trade, but with more border patrols

2001: Multilateral approach with China against North Korea

2001 secret China meeting: backed off from defending Taiwan

"Yes, we do. And the Chinese must understand that," Bush replied.

"And you would..."

"Yes, I would."

"With the full force of the American military?"

"Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."

It was one of the strongest statements the US had made about the delicate issue of Taiwan. The Chinese were very upset.

How do I get out of this? Bush essentially asked. After listening to [adviser Brent] Scowcroft, Bush asked him to go on a secret mission to China to meet with President Jiang Zemin and explain US policy. Scowcroft told the Chinese leader that Bush's policy was to defend Taiwan if the island was attacked unprovoked, but if the Taiwanese took action to change the status quo on their own, the US would not defend them. Jiang and Bush seemed satisfied, and Scowcroft's secret mission never became public.

Six-party talks are better than taking on North Korea alone

KERRY: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. Bush reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy.

The six-party talks will unwind when we have bilateral talks

BUSH: The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That’s exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That’s what we caught him doing. That’s where he was breaking the agreement. Secondly, Kerry said where he worked to put sanctions on Iran-we’ve already sanctioned Iran. Finally, we were a party to the convention-to working with Germany, France and Great Britain to send their foreign ministers into Iran.

KERRY: In order for the sanctions to be effective, we should have been working with the British, French and Germans and other countries. That’s the difference between Bush and me. Again, Bush sort of slid by the question.

2003: Rebuked Taiwan for independence referendum

In 2001, Pres. Bush blurted out, when asked whether America would use all her power to protect the island, that he would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."

In 2003, Taiwan called for a referendum whereby the Taiwanese could vote to demand that Beijing remove the missiles on its side of the strait. Beijing was enraged. President Bush--in the sharpest language a president has ever used on a President of Taiwan--rebuked Chen for holding the referendum. Bush did not mention the five hundred missiles targeted on the island. Even the Washington Post, in an editorial titled "Mr. Bush's Kowtow," thought the President had gone too far in groveling before Beijing and lashing out at a friend for holding a peaceful referendum.

OpEd: "World democratic revolution" means overthrow to China

If China's hawks see in America a superpower resolved to encircle, contain, and deny her her rightful place in the sun, are they wrong? Is this not declared US policy in the National Strategy Statement?

A prominent Chinese scholar has charged that "the US uses the fight against terrorism as an opportunity to pursue its hegemonic strategy, carried out under the cover of antiterrorism." Considering how we launched a preemptive war on Iraq to disarm it of weapons it did not have, does that scholar not have an argument?

If Beijing believes America intends the replacement of its regime with a democracy, is regime change in China not an end goal of President Bush's "world democratic revolution"?

Abandoned ambiguity with China to horror of own diplomats

Q: If Taiwan were attacked by China, do we have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?

A: Yes, we do. And the Chinese must understand that.

Q: With the full force of the American military?

A: Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.

“Strategic ambiguity” was dead. Bush’s words uncorked a whole jugful of complaints from allies, commentators, and foreign-policy wisemen. Unprompted by his own administration-and to the horror of much of his own foreign-policy bureaucracy-Bush was informing the Chinese and the world that the fire marshals had returned to duty in East Asia.

Do “whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan, including military

Bush touched off the controversy in a morning TV interview when he was asked if the US would defend Taiwan with the full force of the US military. “Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself,” he replied. In later interviews, Bush said military action was “certainly an option,” but he also said that Taiwan should not declare its independence.

The US has long supported a “one China” principle, but has insisted that Taiwan and China resolve their differences peacefully. Bush and his aides said the president’s remarks were not meant to signal a change in policy. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the US is obligated to provide Taiwan with equipment to defend itself. Whatever else the US might do to defend Taiwan has been left deliberately vague by previous administrations.

Maintain relations with both Taiwan & China

• Would refocus America’s policy in Asia on friends and allies
• Would redefine relationship between China and U.S. as one of competitors, not strategic partners
• Supports ‘one-China’ policy
• Supports the Taiwan Relations Act
• Supports the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act
• Supports China’s & Taiwan’s admission into the WTO

Defend Taiwan if China violates one-China policy

No strategic ambiguity: US will defend Taiwan against China

But Bush said today, “It’s important for the Chinese to understand that if there’s a military action, we will help Taiwan defend itself.” He would not say whether this meant the US would send troops. Bush’s foreign policy advisor said that Bush was moving away from strategic ambiguity partly because Taiwan has become a democracy and partly because the policy has been poorly implemented in the Clinton administration.

China is an American competitor, not a friend

Entrepreneurial China trade differs from totalitarian Cuba

BAUER: You just made the case for withdrawing MFN status from China. Everything that you just said about Cuba applies to China.

BUSH: There is a huge difference between trading with an entrepreneurial class like that which is growing in China and allowing a Castro government to skim capital monies off the top of capital investment.

BAUER: Tell the people rotting in the prisons of China that there’s any difference between Castro’s Cuba & Communist China. There is none.

BUSH: If we turn our back on the entrepreneurial class that is taking wing in China, we’re making a huge mistake.

BAUER: They are using that money for a massive arms buildup that our sons will have to deal with down the road.

China’s taste of freedom encourages capitalism’s growth

BUSH: Gary, I agree with you that forced abortion is abhorrent. And I agree with you when leaders try to snuff out religion. But I think if we turn our back on China and isolate China things will get worse. Imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread. Our greatest export to the world has been, is and always will be the incredible freedom we understand in America. And that’s why it’s important for us to trade with China to encourage the growth of an entrepreneurial class. It gets that taste of freedom. It gets that breath of freedom in the marketplace.

China: Reaction to espionage was not serious and not enough

Cox Report warrants review of all export controls to China

Withdrew from International Criminal Court agreement

OpEd: obsessed with subverting ICC international authority

Hope we never have to take preemptive military action

Take preemptive action in order to make America secure

BUSH: My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn’t sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion-the difference of opinions. And that is, I wouldn’t join the International Criminal Court. It’s a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.

No “global test”: protect Americans even if unpopular abroad

BUSH: I’m not exactly sure what you mean, “passes the global test.” My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. [For example] I wouldn’t join the International Criminal Court. It’s a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial. I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn’t a popular move. Trying to be popular, in the global sense, if it’s not in our best interest, makes no sense. I’m interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I’m not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

America will never seek a permission slip for self-defense

Bush Doctrine: pre-emptive strikes for US defense

Those who developed the Bush Doctrine- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats-predicted that an impressive US victory in Iraq would intimidate allies and foes alike, making them yield to US interests in other areas. The “neo-conservative” hawks say it is precisely Bush’s willingness to go it alone and take preemptive action that has encouraged other countries to seek diplomatic solutions before the US launches a military attack.

Help poor countries around the world

Bush compromises between internationalists and isolationists

Drawing on the advice of Gen. Colin L. Powell, widely viewed as a potential secretary of state in a Bush administration, Bush is far more tentative about committing American troops and rules out their use for what he dismisses as nation building. “There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often,” he said in the final presidential debate. In the second debate he suggested a broader philosophical disagreement with Mr. Gore: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’”

Gore, on the other hand, has repeatedly portrayed himself as a man who has come to believe in vigorous American intervention abroad

US should humbly empower other countries, not dictate

BUSH: I’m not sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it’s got to be. I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don’t think it’s the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. We went into Russia, we said here’s some IMF money. It ended up in Chernomyrdin’s pocket. And yet we played like there was reform. The only people who are going to reform Russia are Russians. I’m not sure where the vice president’s coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course.

America should be a humble nation, but project strength

BUSH: They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from that you can succeed. I don’t think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.

GORE: I agree with that. One of the problems that we have faced in the world is that we are so much more powerful than any single nation has been in relationship to the rest of the world than at any time in history, that there is some resentment of US power.

Vital interests: US or allies threatened; we can win & exit

1. Whether our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened.
2. Whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be.
3. Whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped.
4. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.

US troops will never be under UN command

“I say that not facetiously,” Bush continued. “I mean, it’s a chance for the world to come together and discuss and to dialogue.”

Less intervention abroad and unilateral nuclear cuts at home

Bush’s foreign policy experience is minimal. Yet his foreign policy speeches and his circle of advisors both draw from the veil of pragmatic, big-power Republicanism practiced with some skill by his father when he was in the White House. As president, he would:
• seek further increases in the defense budget, and a thorough review of military needs and financing
• supports trying not to intervene abroad, unless this was proved to be in America’s national interest
• would appoint General Colin Powell as secretary of state
• supports acting unilaterally in arms-control negotiations, if necessary
• is inclined to scrap the ABM treaty and build a nuclear shield over the objections of Russia and China
• favors deep unilateral cuts in America’s nuclear stockpile
• opposes the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Kyoto accords

Reform UN & IMF; strengthen NATO

• Supports payment of dues to the United Nations only if its bureaucracy is reformed and America’s disproportionate share of its costs is reduced
• Would press for reform at international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, including greater transparency and accountability at these institutions themselves
• Would work to strengthen NATO and America’s other alliances through greater consultation and sustained American leadership

Brokering peace requires diligence and patience

America should speak loudly and carry a big stick

America should act as the leader of the free world

Foreign policy with a touch of iron & a sharpened sword

2008: NATO membership after Ukraine's Orange Revolution

In Nov. 2004, a similar wave of protests broke out after a fraudulent presidential election in Ukraine. At one point during the campaign, opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko suffered a mysterious poisoning that disfigured his face. Yet he refused to drop out of the race. His supporters turned out every day clad in orange scarves and ribbons until the Ukrainian Supreme Court ordered a rerun of the tainted election. Yushchenko won and was sworn in on Jan. 23, 2005, completing the Orange Revolution.

At the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, both Georgia and Ukraine applied for Membership Action Plans, MAPs, the final step before consideration for full membership. I was a strong supporter of their applications. But approval required unanimity. We agreed on a compromise, announcing that they were destined for future membership in NATO.

Supports Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO

"Russia reveals itself to be highly critical of NATO expansion toward the east, and in particular toward the former Soviet republics that it considers to be its natural sphere of influence."

"Last year at its April summit in Bucharest, the alliance promised an eventual path to the admission of the Ukraine and Georgia supported by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush," the cable reminds us.

Can there be any doubt that NATO is a warlike and aggressive organization, one that threatens not only Russia but also other countries elsewhere in the world?

Continue working with Putin in the future

KERRY: I’ve had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation. I regret what’s happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. It’s very important to the US, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy.

Focus on Russia as part of Europe

And why should Putin not be calm? [In an earlier speech], Bush had offered Putin a much bigger prize than any arms control treaty: full membership in the Western world. “We look forward the day when Russia is fully reformed, fully democratic, and closely bound to the rest of Europe. Russia is part of Europe.” In Bush’s first six months in office, he had executed the most ambitious reorientation of America’s grand strategy since Nixon’s time-away from China and toward Russia.

Russia nukes: demand inventory; pay for dismantling

• Work with Russia to achieve verifiable strategic arms reduction and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
• Press Moscow for an accurate inventory of all Russian nuclear material
• Substantially increase funding for the Nunn-Lugar program in order to dismantle as many of Russia’s nuclear weapons as possible, as quickly as possible

Russia funding: replace IMF loans with $ to people

• Opposes any further IMF loans to Russia
• Redirect American assistance, investment and loans to the Russian people, not to the bank accounts of corrupt officials
• Supports reaching out to a new generation of Russians through educational exchanges and programs to support the rule of law and a civil society

Pressure Russia financially to ease up on Chechnya

• Would support the nations of the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia, along with Ukraine, by promoting regional peace and economic development, and opening links to the wider world
• Withhold international financial assistance from Russia because of the Russian government’s attacks against civilians in Chechnya

Focus on Big Three: Russia, China, & India

In a speech on defense policy, Bush issued awarning: “We must be selective in the use of our military, precisely because America has other great responsibilities that cannot be slighted or compromised.”