Foreign Policy

Your March 26 headline says, “Clinton Fails to Move Pakistan on Peace Issues.” However, a clear U.S. policy in South Asia covering India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is better than giving confusing signals. In this respect Clinton was successful in establishing a long-term strategy that could be a win-win-win for the peoples of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

These three countries need to focus on their economic condition, public health and education. President Clinton’s South Asia visit could help create an atmosphere similar to the NAFTA agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. A South Asian free trade agreement between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will help reduce current political tension.

AKHTAR H. EMON

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Thank you for a comprehensive review of our foreign policy debacles over the past eight years (March 26-27). There is certainly enough blame for the two parties to share. The reasons for our loss of leadership are many, but the key ingredient is the loss of trust and credibility in President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Here is a president who lies to the American people, to his staff, his wife and in court. How can anyone accept anything he says as truth? Albright had her nose rubbed in his lies and didn’t have the character to resign in protest.

The most charitable thing one can say about the Clinton peacekeeping efforts is that they may not have made matters worse. Haiti, Ireland, Kosovo, the Mideast and Pakistan are all examples of failed efforts. Granted, some problems may be insoluble; however, don’t try to sell the American people that progress has been made. While Washington is absorbed with the fate of one small Cuban refugee, thousands are being slaughtered each month in Africa. Does Washington think this is OK? Is global warming more important than the immediate stopping of the savagery of human lives? The sad news is that with either George Bush or Al Gore as president, we will still have a foreign-policy dimwit in charge.

DONALD J. PRADO

Valencia

*

Your extensive article (March 27) on the direction (or nondirection) of U.S. foreign policy focuses on ideological differences, while ignoring the competing interests that affect the actual path of our foreign policies.

There are a mixed bag of interests that compete in the U.S. for setting this path: economic, cultural/religious, ethnic, as well as covert political interests. As a recent example, in Indonesia the traditional U.S. support for the Muslim rulers who dominate the oil resources there came into conflict with our sympathy for East Timor Catholics being subjected to Muslim oppression.

Indeed, the very elements supporting intervention against oppression in one particular situation might be silent in some other situation evoking humanitarian concern. Your analysis completely ignores such variables, suggesting instead that the various sectors are consistently humanitarian, hegemonist, minimalist, realist, etc. This view can cause more confusion than clarification.

LARRY SELK

Los Angeles

*

How ironic. The United States--the Microsoft of world politics.

RALPH R. NEBIKER

San Diego