The American InterestrnGore’s Foreign Policy:rnMore of the Same, Only WorsernWe have always known that a Gore presidencyrnwould continue the flawed foreignrnpolicy of the Clinton administration;rnbut now we know that—unlikely asrnit may sound—things may be even worsernif the Vice President wins in November.rnOn the last day of April, Al Gore gave hisrnfirst major foreign policy speech of therncampaign. Speaking to journalists inrnBoston, he outiined his global vision andrnalso warned against the “risky” policies ofrnhis Republican rival, Texas Gov. GeorgernW. Bush.rnhi the key part of his address, Gore singledrnout the economic prosperity of foreignrnnations as a vital security interest ofrnthe United States. “I believe that now wernhave a profound responsibility to openrnthe gates of opportunity for all the world’srnpeople,” he said. “Let me be clear: Promotingrnprosperity throughout the worldrnis a crucial form of forward engagement.”rnOld liabits of mind die hard, and therndistorted trinitarian reflex lingers amongrnGhristophobes, too. That’s why secularrnideologues and social engineers like tornwork under tripartite slogans —”liherte,rnegalite, fratemite,” “ein Reich, ein Volk,rnein Fiihrer.” Perhaps for that reason, tornthe global ist-interventionists’ mantra ofrn”democracy” and “human rights,” Mr.rnGore has now added the third part of thernslogan: “prosperity.”rnIf promoting prosperity in, say, OuterrnMongolia or Moldova is deemed to be arnvital interest of the United States, thenrnany item of economic policy by their governmentsrnthat Gore’s globalist-interventionistsrndeem detrimental to that prosperityrnwill provide an instant casus belli.rnAccordingly, in Gore’s world, America’srn”vital interests” will keep multiplying at arnbreathtaking rate. The new challengesrnwill include the existence of customs barriersrnand protective tariffs in farawayrncountries —those relics of sovereign nationhoodrndetrimental to “free trade.”rnMany more doors to free trade will havernto be kicked open under Gore. Therncraters from ordnance manufactured byrnMcDonnell will become the foundationsrnfor new McDonalds. Any reluctance ofrnforeigners to “privatize” their key ecobyrnSrdja Trifkovicrnnomic assets (say by selling them to WallrnStreet journal subscribers) will warrantrnairstrikes.rnAnd so, in addition to Glinton’s warsrnfor other peoples’ “human rights,” Americarnwill have Gore’s wars for other peoples’rnprosperity. Interventions not connectedrnto any clear and imminent flireatrnto U.S. security will continue; indeed,rnthey are part of Gore’s strategy. “Our nationalrnsecurity interests can be defined byrnour values,” he said. From that premise,rnhe even attacked Bush for his lukewarmrnsupport of last year’s bombing of Serbia.rnOne could argue that Bush shouldrnhave attacked Gore on the administration’srnrecord on the Balkans. This was anrnissue that could have given Bush somernmileage with the millions of Americansrnwho feel uneasy about last year’s bombingrnof Serbia. But since Bush has chosenrnto pay lip service to the mainstream orthodoxy.rnGore can now accuse Bush ofrnbeing indecisive and “dangerously fixatedrnon the Cold War past” in his views onrnthe use of force:rn[Bush] suggests that he would notrnintervene to relieve even the brutalrnrepression of ethnic cleansing andrngenocide. No wonder it took himrnsix weeks to say anything about ourrnaction against the ethnic cleansingrnin Kosovo. Is that the right messagernfor America to send to peoplernaround the globe struggling forrnfreedom?rnIn view of his explicit support for furtherrnexpansion of NATO, it is interestingrnthat Gore attacked Bush for wronglyrnviewing Russia and China as U.S. enemies.rn”While we must remain vigilantrnagainst any deterioration in our relationships,rnthe reality of the Global Age is thatrnRussia and China are indeed competitors,rnbut also vital partners in our efforts torntackle problems menacing to us all,”rnGore said.rnIn fact, it is the Clinton-Gore WhiternHouse that turned Russia into an enemy.rnGore is apparenfly unable to grasp thernfact that it is impossible to maintainrnfriendship with Russia and at the samerntime to advocate further NATO enlargementrnand to bask in the glory of NAT’O’srnvictor’ over the Serbs. Predictably, however,rnthe Beltway establishment welcomedrnhis speech. The Washington Postrneditorial on May 2 expressed pleasurernthat:rnMr. Gore embraced engagementrnof China and Russia, claimed victoryrnfor the Clinton-Gore interventionrnin Kosovo and promised thatrnhe, like Mr. Clinton, would seekrnan agreement with Moscow to permitrndevelopment of a limited U.S.rnmissile-defense system againstrnNorth Korea without sacrificing thern1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.rnThis is an impossible proposition, butrnGore is as oblivious of its incoherence asrnthe Posf s editorialist. The administrationrnthreatens to abrogate the ABM treaty unlessrnthe Russians agree to amend it as desiredrnby Washington. But it is naive, orrnelse deliberately provocative, to expectrnVladimir Putin to perform an act of submissionrnthat is contrary to his country’srninterests and that would make him lookrnweak in the crucial early days of his presidency.rnIf the United States goes aheadrnwith its national missile defense system,rnabandoning the 1972 treaty, then all betsrnwith Russia may be off. Clinton andrnGore claim they can have it both ways.rnThey are wrong. NMD is a bad idearnbased on unsound science and flawedrnstrategic doctrine.rnWhat we need to make Americanrncities more secure is not a misnamed anti-rnballistic shield that may or may notrnwork, but a foreign policy that will notrnprompt the assorted “rogues” around thernworld to consider attacking America inrnthe first place. Al Gore is not the man forrnthe job. Temperamentally and intellectually,rnhe is a Clintonite, but—to makernthings worse—he believes his own propaganda,rnunlike his present boss. Gore’srn”doctrine,” as ouflined on April 30, willrnentangle America in more wars, more interventions,rnand more lies, all unconnectedrnto this countr)”s interests, at oddsrnwith its tradition, and contrary to thernwishes of the vast majority of its people.rnlULY 2000/41rnrnrn