In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater proclaimed that his nomination as the Republican Party's candidate for president of the United States ensured that voters would be provided with "a choice and not an echo".
Now that it is clear that Barack Obama and John McCain will become the major nominees for the 2008 presidential election, analysts are seeking to determine where the two candidates stand on critical foreign policy issues.
Do they provide Americans with a genuine choice? Or do the two men differ only marginally?
With respect to Sino-American relations, the two candidates do appear to be almost identical.
For example, Obama and McCain have promised to abide by the one China policy, while pursuing a "constructive relationship" with Beijing.
Both candidates promise to be "tougher" on trade-related disputes, but neither views China as an enemy. Perhaps symptomatic of the stability that now characterizes bilateral ties, the US' relations with China actually receive limited attention from both political camps.
Irrespective of who is elected president, one may anticipate that there will be little meaningful change in the US' relationship with China.
Without question, the most important foreign policy issue in the 2008 presidential election centers on US policy toward Iraq. Both candidates have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war, but there the similarities end.
McCain claims that calls for an US military withdrawal from Iraq are "reckless" and "naive" and that such a move would create a "failed state" that would become a haven for terrorist groups.
He contends that Iran might seek to take advantage of a "power vacuum" following America's withdrawal and/or that competition for influence in Iraq by neighboring states could spark a regional conflict.
Given such a scenario, McCain warns that the US would be compelled to return to the region to restore order in a costlier and deadlier conflict. The candidate also claims that Washington now has a "moral obligation" to prevent the widespread bloodshed or "ethnic cleansing" that might follow a US withdrawal.
In short, McCain argues that the US must "stay the course" in Iraq and establish a stable, prosperous and democratic state.
Senator Obama does not agree with such arguments. He was one of only a handful of lawmakers who voiced strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq from the start.
Rather than stay and fight to win, Obama contends that US troops should be redeployed in a timely manner to Afghanistan and other locations in stages.
The candidate opposes an escalation in US force levels, deplores the economic costs of the conflict and resists any calls for the establishment of permanent US military bases in Iraq (although he has suggested that some sort of "residual force" might remain).
Obama believes that only a multilateral effort can bring any semblance of peace to Iraq and that a UN-led constitutional convention might represent a good first step toward national reconciliation.
However, the senator cautions that Washington now finds itself in a predicament where "there are no good options,?there are only bad options and worse options." He warns that "there will be risks involved in any approach we take at this point".
To be sure, Obama and McCain share similarities and differences when it comes to foreign policy issues. As described, both candidates support constructive and friendly ties with China.
They also favor the US' continued participation in NATO, a robust alliance with Japan and staunch support for Israel. And neither appears prepared to follow the advice proffered by Chairman Mao Zedong when he met with President Richard M. Nixon during his historic visit to Beijing in 1972. Namely, it is unlikely that either candidate will order large numbers of US troops home.
Despite the overarching similarities, however, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that McCain and Obama are little more than "mirror-images" of each other.
The differences over the US' continuing involvement in Iraq – the most important and divisive issue in the 2008 presidential campaign – are striking.
This does indeed represent one instance when US voters will be provided with a choice, and not an echo. In this sense, the outcome of the US presidential election may influence peace and stability in the Middle East and the economic vitality of the entire global community.
The author is a Fulbright exchange professor at the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing and professor of political science at Missouri State University
(China Daily June 19, 2008)
