In his 2003 address to the Council on Foreign Relations, presidential candidate John Kerry disavowed the U.S. quest for empire as he criticized the Bush Administration’s foreign policy as “the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history.” Instead of empire, Kerry will commit the United States to a “new progressive internationalism” buttressed by renewed alliance and enforced by a dominant US military.

Kerry’s “new” foreign policy has its roots in a policy paper entitled, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy,” found at the Progressive Policy Institute (www.ppionline.org), a New Democrat think-tank. These New Democrats represent the conservative tilting wing of the Democratic Party.

Progressive internationalists define their strategy as a “tough minded internationalism,” that “occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionalist left.” They advocate the “bold exercise of American power, not to dominate but to shape alliances and international institutions.”

Their forebears include the Democratic Presidents of the 20th century who they credit with building the international institutions that led to global prosperity and global security. While they argue that they’re opposed to empire, these progressive internationalists honor presidencies that exhibited imperial strains such as Wilson’s invasion of Mexico, US sabotage of Italian elections under Truman, Kennedy’s attacks on Cuba and the invasion of Vietnam, Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War, and Clinton’s brutal use of bombing and sanctions against Iraq. These events are left unexplained and unexamined and beg the question as to how a democratic national security strategy differs from imperialism.

As a result, “Progressive Internationalism” reads like a saccharine strategy for US hegemony through a multilateral veil. The program calls for the US to again lead the free world by spreading the gospel of free-trade, open markets, and representative democracy cooperatively when possible, militarily if necessary.

Therefore the difference in foreign policy prescriptions is more public relations than a reformation. The ends remain the same while the means are tweaked a little. Progressive internationalists have no qualms about Bush’s use of force; rather it’s his undiplomatic unilateralist streak that they criticize. They advise multilateralism as the best means to achieving “American leadership.”

In a telling admission the progressive internationalists write that the Bush Doctrine of preemption will remain under the “new progressive internationalism.” Correctly, the authors observe preemption was an “option every president has quietly reserved.” Bush’s problem was he used preemption as a bludgeon rather than keeping it in reserve.

Kerry knows not to flaunt the powers of preemption. According to David Sanger in the NY Times, “Kerry would reserve the right to act preemptively,” but “he would never make it a core doctrine of American foreign policy.” Moreover, Kerry’s more diplomatic approach would “be backed by undoubted military might.”

Although strategies differ, the goal remains the same for both Republican and Democrat Presidents: expand the scope of US power. The only way to do this is to ensure the US has access to and control over foreign markets and resources, especially Near East oil. Since not all governments will comply with US demands, US foreign policy must become interventionalist. If it didn’t, the US couldn’t ensure it got the oil, markets, and investment needed to maintain American living standards.

Regardless who wins come November, ensuring our access and control over Near East oil may be the most critical goal of US foreign policy for two reasons. First, the US needs oil. As the 2001 National Energy Report warns, imported energy supplies will make up two-thirds of our demand by 2020. Analyzing the report for The Nation, international security specialist Michael Klare wrote “the reports calls on the White House to place a high priority on increasing US access to Persian Gulf supplies.” The war in Iraq may have solved much of this problem.

Second, U.S. control over Near East oil will give America tremendous leverage over economic upstart China. Some U.S. foreign policy analysts fear we may lose our traditional sphere of influence in Asia if China continues to industrialize the way it has been. With control over Near East oil, US can manipulate Chinese economic growth.

Because of these foreign policy concerns, the US’s role in the world shouldn’t change dramatically under Kerry. Americans can count on the continued construction of permanent military bases in the region, soldiers in Iraq, and continued support for authoritarian regimes throughout the Near East.

Still, a Kerry foreign policy remains a step forward. If elected, Kerry will repair relations with the industrialized world and make the US more diplomatically inclined thereby avoiding more war. Nevertheless, our continued presence in the Near East will increase terrorist recruitment and America will continue to brandish its military dominance conveniently when diplomacy fails within the developing world. The empire will continue, just less abrasively.

Matthew Harwood, of Morrisville, PA, is a free-lance writer. He can be reached at mharwood31@comcast.net.

###