Campbell Plays Up Sharp Foreign Policy Differences

With the economy rolling, the U.S. the lone superpower and voters focused on up-close issues such as health care, you don’t hear fierce discussion these days over the course of U.S. foreign policy. Not from the presidential candidates. Not among those running for Congress.

But in the U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Dianne Feinstein and Republican Rep. Tom Campbell, foreign policy has been a key element of the debate, thanks largely to Campbell’s focus on foreign affairs and his controversial proposals on some issues.

Example 1: While unwilling to cut U.S. military aid to Israel, Campbell has suggested that America redirect economic aid from countries, including Israel, that have solid economies. The money, he says, should go to relief agencies providing food, shelter and medicine in Third World countries.

Example 2: Campbell, saying America goes to war too much, opposed sending troops to Kosovo and sued President Clinton for allegedly violating the War Powers Act. More recently, Campbell opposed Congress’ authorizing $1.2 billion--and military advisors--to fight drug lords in Colombia.

Example 3: As surely as Feinstein has been one of China’s strongest voices in Congress, Campbell has opposed permanent trade relations with that nation. Yet recently, Campbell did what Feinstein soon hopes to do--voted to give China permanent trade status. Still, while Feinstein sees great possibilities in China, including the prospect that sheer economics can move it toward democracy, Campbell portrays China as a military menace and voted for the trade agreement, he said, only after Europe strengthened trade ties with China.

While they share some common ground, for example on ending the U.S. embargo of Cuba and doing more to address the AIDS pandemic in Africa, their differences are vast.

“I’m encouraged that foreign policy issues are taken seriously in a Senate campaign,” said Ian O. Lesser, senior analyst at Rand and a specialist in international security issues. “It is unusual and a healthy thing to be part of this debate.”

Like many Republicans during the Clinton administration, Campbell has been dovish about the use of U.S. military force overseas. But few have gone as far in attacking Clinton’s decisions. The congressman’s lawsuit, rejected by lower courts, has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not decided whether to hear the case.

“Can I be wrong about my view on [sending U.S. troops to] Kosovo? Sure,” Campbell told the Orange County World Affairs Council recently. “But I don’t tolerate the view the Constitution can be ignored . . . that was a war and you don’t go to war without the approval of Congress.”

The argument resonates with many.

“There are many people in Congress, of varying backgrounds, who take the view any president committing American troops should come to Congress for permission,” said John E. Reilly, president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.

“On the frequency of military intervention, there is no doubt the Clinton administration has been more prone to use military force than previous administrations,” Reilly said. “And I think there is a . . . consensus in the foreign policy community that the Clinton administration has relied too heavily on military force and has not used diplomacy.”

Feinstein said she believes the administration’s interventions have been lawful and justified.

“I believe the Clinton administration has acted consistently with how the executive branch has approached these questions since the adoption of the War Powers Act,” Feinstein said.

“Moreover, although Mr. Campbell may not like it, there has been congressional action in support of many of these missions--including the provision of appropriations and passage of resolutions authorizing military action--that the courts and congressional scholars uniformly conclude count as congressional discharge of its constitutional responsibility . . . “ she added.

And, Feinstein said, she supports the interventions in the Balkans, “based on the belief that the U.S. cannot turn its back on genocide.”

Split on Strategies for National Defense

In the area of national defense, Campbell has endorsed the Missile Defense System first championed by former President Ronald Reagan and still pursued by Clinton.

“The Soviet Union is no longer a threat, but it is possible that some of its missiles have fallen into the wrong hands,” said Campbell, who has often traveled to Russia with his wife, Susanne, who directs a business school program operated jointly by UC Berkeley and Russia’s St. Petersberg University.

“I believe that a space-based missile defense capable of protecting us from the accidental launch of another country’s nuclear weapons--or from a limited number of missiles currently able to be fired at America by an outlaw nation--is both practical and desirable,” Campbell said.

But even before the latest test of the system failed in early July, Feinstein made it clear she doubts the wisdom of moving forward with the proposal.

“I think it’s a flawed premise,” Feinstein told reporters in Sacramento. “I think that we should not go ahead with it at this point,” she said, raising concerns that moving forward runs the risk of jeopardizing U.S. arms treaties with other nations.

Similarly, Feinstein sees peril in Campbell’s call for revamping America’s foreign aid policies.

His campaign Web site explains the congressman’s view: “There is no reason for the United States to continue to send foreign economic (nonmilitary) aid to countries that are fully capable of helping themselves.

“Rather, I believe that the world goal of the United States foreign-aid program should center upon helping the desperately poor and the starving, children in need of inoculations, those at risk of blindness because of diet deficiency, and entire populations in need of family-planning assistance,” he said, citing Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Haiti.

Campbell’s suggestion to divert aid from Israel, Egypt and other countries, while politically nervy, is hardly groundbreaking.

“That is an old issue,” said the Chicago council’s Reilly, “and no one gets far with it.

With Mideast peace talks at a critical juncture, such a policy now seems unthinkable, say Lesser and others.

“We are at a very critical stage in the peace process, and it would be very strange to me to make strategic changes now in how we apportion foreign aid in the region,” Lesser said.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, also raised concerns about the proposal.

“I would be inclined to continue the aid to Israel,” said Wilson, who also served in the U.S. Senate. “I think their security remains an uppermost consideration . . .. And while I would agree there has been a marked upturn in Israel’s economy, I think there is a reasonably good case to be made that they are in need of foreign aid and, as an ally of the United States, deserve some priority in aid.”

Said Feinstein: “Israel is an important strategic ally of the United States, and I strongly believe that it is in our national security interest to continue to provide Israel with foreign assistance.”

On the broader issue of foreign aid, Feinstein said she does not believe it should be debated on a “zero-sum” basis.

“The United States has the resources, and it is in our interest to provide assistance to both strategic allies and impoverished nations around the world,” she said, asserting that the U.S. currently spends too little in such aid--less than a penny of every federal dollar in spending.

How much the U.S. can or should dispatch to other nations is only half the debate over Congress’ recent aid package to Colombia.

In Campbell’s view, the gambit is not only costly but dangerous.

“Congress has voted $1.2 billion to get us further involved in a civil war in a jungle . . . to fight an insurgency that [the Colombian government] has not been able to defeat in the last 35 years,” Campbell said.

“The parallels to Vietnam are real,” according to Campbell. “The only thing missing is [former Defense Secretary] Robert McNamara’s signature.”

Reilly echoed those concerns.

“Within the foreign policy community, this is a very controversial issue because it does reflect a pretty fundamental change in American policy--to get involved in pretty massive way with military, intelligence and large economic assistance,” Reilly said. “The scale of our involvement really represents a change,” he added. He said the foreign aid package catapults Colombia to the No. 3 position in U.S. foreign aid, behind Israel and Egypt.

But Feinstein supported the aid, and public opinion surveys show many Americans consider narcotics trafficking a threat to U.S. security. Halting international drug trade ranked a close second to reducing the threat of international terrorism in a Pew Research Center survey last year of America’s foreign policy priorities.

“The public rates the flow of drugs very highly,” said Andrew Kohut, director of polling at the Washington, D.C., center. “They see drugs as more of a threat than most geopolitical problems.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

On Foreign Policy

A key area of contention between Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her Republican rival, Rep. Tom Campbell, is foreign policy.

*

Foreign aid

CAMPBELL: Would redirect economic aid from countries with strong economies, including Israel, to relief agencies providing food, shelter, medicine to Third World nations.

FEINSTEIN: Would not cut economic aid to Israel or other military allies. Would examine increasing foreign aid to impoverished nations.

*

Missile defense

CAMPBELL: Endorses space-based missile defense system like that championed by former President Reagan.

FEINSTEIN: Opposes moving forward with missile defense system, noting its failed tests. Says it could jeopardize arms treaties.

*

China

CAMPBELL: Supports normal trade relations with China as means of competing with Europe’s trade agreements with the world’s biggest nation. But sees China as a military threat.

FEINSTEIN: Supports normal trade relations with China as best means of improving relationsand pressuring it to improve its human rights record.

*

Military interventions

CAMPBELL: Calls Clinton administration too quick to send U.S. troops overseas. Sued president over Kosovo. Opposed decision to provide military advisors to combat drugs in Colombia.

FEINSTEIN: Supported U.S. intervention in Kosovo, and U.S. aid package to Colombia.

*

SAYING NO TO DRUG WAR

Campbell says anti-drug funds would be better spent on preventing and treating abuse than on law enforcement. A18