DISADVANTAGE/BIPARTISANSHIP

ANSWER: FOREIGN POLICY BIPARTISANSHIP WILL CONTINUE

USA WAS ABLE TO HAVE BIPARTISAN FOREIGN POLICY DURING CLINTON FIASCO, SO IT SHOULD BE EASY NOW

John F. Kerry, US Senator, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Views from the Hill; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 83 HEADLINE: Stopping at the Water's Edge //VT2002acsln

Even during the last eight years, when partisanship was paramount and impeachment of a president was on the congressional agenda, a consensus ultimately emerged in the Congress on some key foreign policy issues: free trade in North America, preservation and expansion of the NATO alliance, military intervention in Kosovo, WTO membership for China, normalization of relations with Vietnam, political and financial support for the Middle East peace process, and support for global efforts to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa.

FOREIGN POLICY BIPARTISANSHIP CAN INCLUDE SPIRITED DEBATE AND DISAGREEMENT

Charles Hagel, US Senator, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Views from the Hill; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 93 HEADLINE: History's Lessons //VT2002acsln

To me "bipartisan foreign policy" means a mutual effort, under our indispensable two-party system, to unite our official voice at the water's edge so that America speaks with maximum authority against those who would divide and conquer the free world and us. It does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate in determining our position. On the contrary, frank cooperation and free debate are indispensable to ultimate unity. In a word, it simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage.

Bipartisan cooperation need not mean the lack of spirited debate. All voices should be heard and points of view represented. Ultimately, however, we in Congress need to find areas of common agreement with the president to provide U.S. leadership in this changing world.

CONGRESSIONAL FOREIGN POLICY BIPARTISANSHIP IS A THING OF THE PAST

Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Looking Ahead; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 123 HEADLINE: How to Forge Ahead //VT2002acsln

Power in Congress on foreign policy has become more diffuse in recent decades, as the main foreign policy committees have lost influence to a variety of other committees and to individual members advancing specific causes. It may be misguided nostalgia to think that Congress ever spoke with one voice in foreign policy, but now Congress seems often to speak with 535.

FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES ARE INHERENTLY NON-PARTISAN BECAUSE OF A LACK OF CLEAR LEFT-RIGHT DISTINCTIONS

In many of these debates, disagreement does not fall neatly along partisan lines. Though for different reasons, members of Congress in the extremes of both parties have joined forces to form an odd-fellows kind of neo-isolationist movement. They support policies that would have the practical effect of limiting U.S. engagement in multinational institutions and organizations that held such great promise for international cooperation just a decade ago. They argue against a free trade agreement with China, fight against the terms of U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and use clearly unaccountable global bureaucrats at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as an excuse to oppose even the most reasonable initiatives. Striking a nationalist tone on the right, they argue that U.S. troops should not be wasting their valuable time and resources keeping the peace in places that are not vital to U.S. national interests. Reaching a similar conclusion, those on the left argue that multinational organizations are too powerful, the U.S. military too influential, and the U.S. international presence too far flung. Beyond this confluence, the Left and the Right disagree on almost everything else.

BUSH WILL GAIN FAST TRACK AUTHORITY

Alton Frye, Presidential Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, 2001 Spring The Washington Quarterly SECTION: CAN FOREIGN POLICY BE BIPARTISAN?; Analyzing Politics; Vol. 24, No. 2; Pg. 107 HEADLINE: The Opportunity Is Real //VT2002acsln

Whether the president can or should press for the fast-track negotiating authority Congress denied to Clinton is less certain, but Bush has signaled that he wants it and, if its enactment seems essential to energize a new round of trade bargaining, he will surely have a fair chance of gaining it.

CONCERN OVER IRAQ WMD IS BIPARTISAN

In Congress, concern that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD programs is bipartisan. Since the withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq two years ago, however, little serious attention has been paid -- either by the Congress or the White House -- to addressing Iraq's growing threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region. What little debate there might have been over the UN's attempt to lift economic sanctions on Iraq in exchange for a resumption of inspections evaporated as it became clear that Saddam would not consider allowing UN inspectors to return. In the absence of international inspections, it is vital that tight sanctions remain in place on exports of military goods and dual-use technologies to contain Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbors.