 | John Edwards Democratic Candidate
North Carolina | Intersection of International Law and U.S. Foreign Policy - What is your general view of the role of international law in U.S. foreign policy?
I believe that nations should cooperate and adhere to common rules. The United States has a grand tradition of leading nations in working together and I will preserve that tradition as president.
We need a new path for foreign policy, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, "No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all." For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well.
- Please provide an example of how this general view might play out in a specific policy context?
The United States should join the International Criminal Court. Strengthening the role of international law in the prosecution of international crime and especially war crimes will help strengthen the world community while furthering America's interests in a world governed by the rule of law and dedicated to stamping out tyranny. |
International Legal Regimes
- What priorities or goals would you establish for the development of existing or new international legal regimes?
Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. When it comes to reengaging with the world, there is no higher priority than restoring our moral leadership. We must lead the world toward international law regimes that will move the community of nations toward constitutionalism, the rule of law, openness, and stability, and away from tyranny, genocide, and oppression.
- What priorities would you set for Senate advice and consent on treaties currently lacking U.S. ratification?
While recognizing the separation of powers in our constitutional system, I will work closely with the Congress to promote ratification of treaties that will forward our self interest while ensuring progress in both bilateral and multilateral relationships on issues of justice, equality, and constitutionalism. |
International Trade Policy
- What would be your administration's international trade policy?
We need a new era in trade policy. We need smart trade policies that American workers can say yes to - trade policies that do more than pay lip service to people's needs and that actually make sure prosperity is shared. We need trade policies that are as innovative as the American people. And when I'm president, those are the trade policies we will have.
Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO include special privileges for corporations, such as strong remedies for commercial rights and unprecedented rights to challenge environmental and health laws. I believe that trade agreements should be judged by their effect on regular families and include strong rights for workers.
Our trade policies should lift up workers around the world. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated fairly and share in trade gains is the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do economically, and it will make us much safer and more secure. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers' rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. I believe that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. I will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs, any new bilateral trade agreements, and future World Trade Organization negotiations.
I will also require strong environmental standards so multinational companies cannot profit by exploiting weak environmental laws and enforcement in some countries. For example, after the U.S. has capped its greenhouse gas pollution as I have proposed, trade policy could be used if necessary to encourage similar commitments by other nations.
- Would you seek any modification of existing trade agreements?
I will prosecute violations of our existing trade deals and I will work to ensure that any future trade agreements make sense for American workers. Too often, Washington has looked the other way while other countries have broken trade laws and failed to live up to their commitments to open markets to U.S. goods. The U.S. Trade Representative is currently responsible for enforcement, but often neglects trade deals as soon as the ink dries. As a result, trade violations like subsidies are overlooked, unsafe products enter the country, intellectual property is pirated, and goods are counterfeited. I will assign top prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice to the job of enforcing trade laws, including the stronger labor and environment standards I will negotiate. I will also go after illegal trade subsidies and insist that China and other countries move toward ending manipulation of their currencies, seeking WTO sanctions if necessary.
I will also renegotiate NAFTA to make sure it works for workers in all three countries. We need to change our trade policies. Trade deals need to make sense for American workers, not just corporations, and include strong labor and environmental standards. NAFTA is an example of exactly the wrong kind of trade deal. This spring, I have spoken out against the proposed South Korea Free Trade Agreement, which would be the largest trade deal since NAFTA.
NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
- What would be your approach to the WTO and future global trade talks?
I believe that the true test of a trade deal is not its reception on Wall Street or contribution to the gross domestic product. Instead, my primary criterion for new trade deals will be simple: considering its impact on jobs, wages and prices, will it make most families better off? I will reject President Bush's use of trade agreements to encourage countries to support his foreign policy, rather than to strengthen our economy.
Many overseas workers work 12 to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without the right to form an independent union. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers' rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. I believe that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. I will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs, any new bilateral trade agreements, and future World Trade Organization negotiations.
I also support strong environmental standards so multinational companies cannot profit by exploiting weak environmental laws and enforcement in some countries. For example, after the U.S. has capped its greenhouse gas pollution as I have proposed, trade policy could be used to encourage similar commitments by other nations. |
International Criminal Court
- What should be the U.S. policy toward the ICC?
When America doesn't engage in international institutions like the ICC, when we show disrespect for international agreements, it makes it extraordinarily difficult when we need the world community to rally around us to get them there. We should be the natural leader in all of these areas. We should be a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and we should cooperate with its ongoing investigations. The U.S. is committed to bringing war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity to justice. We will always stand by this commitment. I strongly believe in the principles underlying the Court-to ensure that criminals are brought to justice. We must be able to protect American servicemembers from politically-motivated prosecutors. I believe we can do this while joining the court and assisting in its investigations.
The United States has the human and practical resources to support a relatively new multilateral organization like the ICC. Supporting the ICC will ensure that those who commit the most serious crimes against humanity are punished even if national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. This will help promote lasting peace and security, enable members of communities victimized by these crimes to rebuild their lives, and send a strong message to all would-be tyrants that their crimes will not go unpunished. |
Non-Proliferation
- What would be your strategy for shoring up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime and regulation of other weapons of mass destruction?
There is no more urgent task than preventing terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon or another weapon of mass destruction. And we will all be better off when the world is free of nuclear weapons. We need to strengthen the Non-Proliferation regime, which has led to a world with far fewer nuclear nations. We must also make sure that these protections are extended to other weapons of mass destruction, both through existing and future bilateral and multilateral agreements.
Tough, aggressive diplomacy is key to progress against nuclear weapons. The recent agreement with North Korea to shut down their nuclear programs in exchange for the release of frozen assets is long overdue, but encouraging. It is telling that the few successes of the Bush administration come from the diplomacy it has derided. |
Global Climate Change
- What policies would you have toward global climate change regulation?
Climate change is an international problem and the U.S. can never solve it alone. China is building the equivalent of one large coal-fired power plant a week and is expected this year to pass the U.S. as the world's largest polluter of carbon dioxide -- by some estimates, they already have. To lead the world toward a new, effective climate change treaty, I will make domestic commitments that restore America's moral leadership and I will involve developing economies.
The U.S. has 4 percent of the world's population but produces a quarter of its carbon dioxide emissions. It is one of only three developed nations that has refused to limit its greenhouse gas pollution. By adopting caps, I will help the U.S. regain credibility in the world without sacrificing American competitiveness.
Any climate change treaty must include developing countries, which emit significant amounts of carbon and could otherwise serve as a haven for polluters. However, these nations are poorer than the U.S. and emit far less carbon per capita. To bring them to the table, I will share America's clean energy technology in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, I will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field. |
Laws of War and the Use of Force
- What are your views regarding the role of international law and institutions in shaping international efforts to combat terrorism?
We must replace the so-called "war on terror" doctrine with a real strategy to unify our intelligence and security efforts through closer international cooperation. We need a bold new approach-one that is smart, tough, and targeted. This will require us to look beyond the structures of World War II and the Cold War to new tools that will allow us to target terrorism more precisely. It will require sustained U.S. leadership-but the kind that leverages the power of partnerships, rather than goes it alone. We must be prepared to respond militarily to terrorist threats in progress, but we also must root out and shut down emerging terrorist threats.
As president, I will create the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO). CITO will focus on high-level diplomatic engagement between a wide range of nation partners on all dimensions of terrorism. Going beyond institutions designed for an earlier age, CITO will meet today's threats by providing more complete intelligence sharing and allied response cells to perform security operations. I will also strengthen multilateral efforts to improve cooperation to identify and interdict weapons of mass destruction being transferred from hostile nations to terrorist organizations. And I will accelerate efforts to provide states-in-need with assistance to safeguard their nuclear resources, as well as to improve their border controls.
- In this context, do you see a need to amend or modify the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions?
We need to strengthen the Geneva Conventions to ensure that they fully address challenges presented by modern threats like terrorism while fulfilling their original goals.
- What views do you have regarding any legal constraints on U.S. use of force?
I strongly support the War Powers Act's establishment of Congressional oversight of the declaration and guidance of acts of war.
- What are your views of the doctrine of pre-emptive use of force?
President Bush's preemption doctrine is clearly dangerous for the country and for the world. While I believe that it would not be responsible to tie the president's hands in the case of a threat to the country or our allies, it is equally important we avoid dangerous foreign policy mistakes such as Iraq, which were based on the preemption doctrine.
|
| |
