Brown and Warren each provided written answers to 10 questions on international relations.
Foreign policy might be getting lost as a topic so far in the bitter U.S. Senate contest in Massachusetts, but the winner could be dealing a lot with the issue in the years ahead.
Considering the important role Congress plays in foreign policy, The Republican and Masslive.com posed ten questions on the issue to U.S. Sen. Scott P. Brown, the Republican incumbent, and Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic challenger and a Harvard law professor.
Each candidate provided written answers that reveal some contrasts in tone and positions on issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's potential to produce nuclear weapons and the wisdom of cutting foreign aid during the debt crisis.
Warren, for example, said the U.S. should leave Afghanistan "as quickly as possible," consistent with troop safety and a transition to Afghan control.
She wrote that the troops "have done all that we could have asked them for and more in Afghanistan, but it is time for them to come home."
Brown, 52, said he supports President Barack Obama's current plan to draw down troops in the region.
A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Brown said he will continue to monitor the war in Afghanistan.
"The last thing any of us want is for Afghanistan to be a haven for terrorists to launch attacks on our country," Brown wrote.
The two also struck different chords when asked if the War in Iraq was worthwhile or a mistake.
While she praised the courage and fortitude of troops in Iraq, Warren, 63, said people need to learn a larger lesson from the war.
"We should exhaust all other options before going to war, and we must never again put wars on a credit card for our grandchildren to pay for," Warren wrote. "If war is unavoidable and in our national interest, then we should be willing to pay for it as we fight it."
Brown said that Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was a "murderous dictator" who had to be stopped.
"It was the American forces that captured Saddam and gave the Iraqi people the chance to chart their own destiny, voting in free and fair elections for the first time," Brown wrote. "While each country is a unique case, I also believe that seeing Iraqis vote and get a taste of democracy has had a positive ripple effect across the region."
On the issue of Iran, Warren said a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the world.
"I support economic sanctions in conjunction with other countries that have placed political pressure on Iran, as well as vigorous diplomacy to try to resolve the situation through negotiations," Warren wrote. "Like the president, I believe the United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- but also that careless talk of rushing to ware in unhelpful."
Brown said that there is no greater threat to the world than Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability.
"Evidence that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon continues to emerge," Brown wrote. "It would be counterproductive to embrace this dangerous ambition with the full recognition of the United States government."
The two stressed different themes on the need to cut foreign aid in the face of the fiscal cliff in Washington. Warren said the budget cuts should start with tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, loopholes for hedge fund managers and special deals that allow some multinational companies to pay no federal income taxes.
Brown said foreign aid is important for humanitarian purposes and provides leverage in negotiations involving national security for the U.S. The aid is a relatively small portion of the federal budget, but the nation should not spend anything more than necessary to accomplish those goals, Brown wrote.
The next senator from Massachusetts could have a say on a possible new war, a treaty, the budget of the State Department or other items involving international relations.
Read on to determine if certain foreign-policy stances of Brown and Warren could affect the way you vote on Nov. 6.
Q. There are concerns that violence between major factions in Iraq could erupt into a full-blown civil war. Is Iraq unraveling? Should we have kept a residual military force in place instead of withdrawing troops?
BROWN: American troops did their job. Now, the US government must continue to aid Iraq and assist in a full transition to a competent, capable and functioning government and security force so that Al Qaeda cannot reemerge as a serious threat to our national interests.
I supported the surge of forces in Iraq and believe the country has improved in many ways since then. However, many challenges remain. The security threats of al Qaeda and affiliated groups still pose a risk to regional stability. While battered and bruised, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) maintains a presence in Iraq and will continue to attempt to stage attacks. Iranian-backed militias, other violent extremist organizations, and lingering ethnic tensions between Sunni and Shia and Arabs and Kurds will present challenges to the Iraqi government in providing critical government services.
The next year in Iraq will be critical and marks the final stage of transition in Iraq from the drawdown of the US military operation to normalized relations under the Status of Forces Agreement (SFA). We must continue our interaction with Iraq by building upon the structure in the SFA and improving our strategic partnerships in areas of defense, education, economics and diplomacy.
WARREN: After years of sacrifice by America’s armed forces and billions of dollars in spending put on a credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay, President Obama made the right decision to end combat operations in Iraq. Now we must build a strong political and economic partnership with the Iraqi government to promote stability in the region.
Q. Should the US be arming the militants in Syria? Why or why not? The Syrian government is backed by Iran and Hezbollah and is using its Army to kill the opposition and civilians in the process.
BROWN: I’m deeply concerned about the current situation in Syria. With over 10,000 civilians killed by their own government and violence spilling over into Lebanon, the international community cannot afford to sit idly by as (president Bashar al-)Assad continues down the path of destruction and mass killings. I strongly support the Syrian people in their pursuit to oust the oppressive Assad regime.
While all options should remain on the table, at this time, I do not think we should be committing any U.S. troops, but I do believe strongly that we have a responsibility to protect human life. We must work with the international community to stop the violence and help the opposition, including providing food and medical supplies, and assisting in training.
WARREN: The ongoing killing of civilians in Syria is a terrible tragedy, and Assad has got to go. The unfolding question is how to accomplish those goals. The President is right to try to work with others in the region and in the international community to influence Syria. Because assistance can have complex and unintended consequences, we should not act unless we are confident that we can do more good than harm and that we have a clear plan and achievable goals.
Q. Should we get out of Afghanistan as soon as possible? Or should we make sure the situation is stabilized first? President Obama has set a withdrawal date of 2014. There are about 80,000 troops in Afghanistan now after a surge of troops approved by Obama in 2009. Do you support Obama’s withdrawal plans? Or should we withdraw more quickly?
BROWN: First, I’m exceptionally proud of our men and women in uniform for their enduring display of resolve to accomplish the mission.
I supported President Obama’s troop surge and I support the current plan to drawdown the troops in the region according to the Strategic Partnership Agreement. However, I have concerns with making the withdrawal date public, because I do not believe we should be telling our enemies our strategy when it comes to exit plans. I’m focused on ensuring we capitalize on the gains we’ve made while responsibly withdrawing our forces, building the capacity of the Afghan security forces and improving Afghanistan’s governmental institutions to fill in the gaps once we’re gone. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to monitor the situation. The last thing any of us want is for Afghanistan to be a haven for terrorists to launch attacks on our country.
(Note: Brown has served 32 years in the Army National Guard and served in Afghanistan fulfilling his yearly military training duty. He was there for nearly 2 weeks in 2011.)
WARREN: We need to get out as quickly as possible, consistent with the safety of our troops and with a transition to Afghan control. Our brave service members have done all that we could have asked them for and more in Afghanistan, but it is time for them to come home. Ultimately, it is the Afghans who must take responsibility for their own future.
Q. Was the War in Iraq, which ended last year, a worthwhile effort or was it a mistake from the start? About 4,500 US military members were killed and another 32,000 injured. What was accomplished in Iraq that made it worthwhile?
BROWN: Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator who had the blood of Israelis, as well as hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shia, on his hands. He was a state sponsor of global terrorism, and I’ll never forget his missile attacks on Israeli civilian targets in the first Gulf war. His murderous reign had to be stopped. It was the American forces that captured Saddam and gave the Iraqi people the chance to chart their own destiny, voting in free and fair elections for the first time. While each country is a unique case, I also believe that seeing Iraqis vote and get a taste of democracy has had a positive ripple effect across the region. We’ve since seen people in countries like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and now Syria demanding an end to autocratic rule.
WARREN: With my three older brothers having served in the military – one career, with 288 combat missions in Vietnam – I know first-hand how tough, smart, and resourceful our servicemembers are. I also know how much they and their families contribute to our country. The men and women of our armed forces who served in Iraq did everything we asked of them, and no one doubts their courage and fortitude. We should honor and respect their service, their commitment, and their efforts in ending a brutal regime. But we also need to learn a larger lesson from the war in Iraq. We should exhaust all other options before going to war, and we must never again put wars on a credit card for our grandchildren to pay for. If a war is unavoidable and in our national interest, then we should be willing to pay for it as we fight it. If public support is so weak that the American people are unwilling to pay for the war, then we should not go to war. Either all of us go to war, or none of us go to war.
Q. North Korea has active nuclear and ballistic missile weapons programs and a terrible record on human rights that includes labor camps for those who disagree with the government. What is your strategy for dealing with North Korea?
BROWN: North Korea is an unpredictable and dangerous threat to regional stability. Given their track-record, I remain deeply concerned over North Korea’s proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to state and non-state actors. We must use all of our diplomatic resources to continue to be tough with the North Korean government, including working with our allies in the region to send a united message that a defiant, nuclear-armed North Korea is unacceptable.
Our strategy should include targeted sanctions on the regime, the enforcement of international restrictions on ballistic missile components, eliminating the illicit trade networks that keep regime loyalists well-funded, and working with China to pressure the North to abandon its nuclear program. The real victims of the North Korean regime are the North Korean people. They are suffering from famine and extreme poverty. Their repressive government spends what money it has on its military, its nuclear program and luxury goods for the ruling elite, rather than providing basic necessities to its own population. If North Korea cooperates with the international community, food aid and economic assistance can be restored.
WARREN: Around the world, the proliferation of nuclear weapons remains a critical challenge. The recent leadership transition in North Korea and its failed missile launch in April 2012 are developments that require continued U.S. monitoring and attention, in addition to close cooperation with our allies and continued efforts with those in the region. If there is to be progress, North Korea must first take action to demonstrate good faith including suspending enrichment, halting missile tests, and allowing international inspectors into the country.
Q. What can be done about abuses of human rights in China, an incredibly valued trade partner? According to certain organizations, issues include the use of capital punishment, the one-child policy, the political status of Tibet and a lack of freedoms in the press and religion and a lack of legal rights.
BROWN: Our country is a model for the world in terms of human rights and democracy and we should not miss occasions to insist that the Chinese make serious progress in respect for its citizens. Secretary (of State Hillary) Clinton has been able to press the Chinese to make progress on human rights issues. China is heavily reliant on trade with the United States. The U.S. should continue to use its leverage with China to encourage the country to respect human rights. In addition, we should continue to support democracies in Taiwan, Japan and South Korea so that the Chinese people have neighboring examples of democracy and human rights.
WARREN: China’s rise over the last generation has been incredibly important. Today, our economies and security are in many ways intertwined, as we work together on issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to piracy. The United States must continue to stand up for the universal values this country was founded on, including free speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement. In the short-term, this position will inevitably introduce some frictions into our foreign relations. In the longer term, China’s engagement with global issues – from human rights to global and regional security challenges to ensuring a level economic playing field – will help sustain a stable, long-term relationship between our two nations. I support the U.S. government’s efforts to connect with the Chinese government on these issues, and I hope that both governments will continue to build those connections in the future.
Q. President Obama has been criticized for using the raid that killed Osama bin Laden as a way to boost his re-election campaign. The Associated Press reported that he used the May 2 anniversary of bin Laden’s death to help maximize a political narrative that portrays the president as bold and decisive. Is it appropriate for the president to use the death of bin Laden for his re-election campaign?
BROWN: Osama bin Laden’s death was a victory for the United States and peace loving people around the world. President Obama deserves credit for ordering the raid.
However, I do have concerns about the possibility that the Administration shared sensitive information about the raid, including the identities of sources and the tactics and techniques used. Not only did this put American lives at risk, but also risked the lives of the brave individuals who work and partner with the United States abroad. The Pakistani doctor that assisted the CIA with a vaccination clinic that covertly collected DNA from Osama’s Abbottabad compound, Dr. Shakil Afridi, is now in prison for treason because his identity was leaked to the New York Times.
WARREN: President Obama displayed strong leadership with his decision to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and his assertive operations have eliminated many of al Qaeda’s senior leadership and weakened its affiliates. We must continue our political, military, economic, and diplomatic efforts against al Qaeda and its affiliates, and we need to continue to support the efforts of our intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and military professionals.
Q. What can be done to weaken the powerful drug cartels in Mexico? Would you support drone strikes by the United States against the cartel operations if approved by the Mexican government?
BROWN: As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have worked with my Senate colleagues to improve border security and the security of cargo imported through our ports of entry. However, the violence in Mexico underscores the importance of strong security along our Southwest border. The motive for the Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) is short and simple—it’s about greed. Whoever controls the routes controls the profit. DTOs seek to create an environment of lawlessness and chaos that they can freely operate in.
Mexico’s drug problem does not stop at our border, and nor will the violence, if serious gains are not made against the problem in the coming years. Greater emphasis needs to be made on interdiction and disruption of trade routes, forcing the drug traffickers out of their ‘zones of safety’. Counternarcotics and intelligence collection and sharing should be prioritized. I don’t believe drone strikes should be considered at this time. Drone strikes don’t address the demand side of the problem, as disruption of the networks in Mexico doesn’t mean disruption of the trade, routes will simply move elsewhere. Drone strikes that kill civilian bystanders will quickly reverse civilian sentiment on the war.
WARREN: The United States must continue to work with the Mexican government to identify ways to end the escalating violence by drug cartels in Mexico. Mexico and the United States share a common interest in ending this illicit behavior, and our responsibilities both start at home. That is why I support the Obama Administration’s focus on reducing demand from within the United States for illicit drugs and on working collaboratively with the Mexican government to find a comprehensive solution to the trafficking of narcotics and weapons.
Q. Do you support restoring formal diplomatic relations with Iran? What needs to be done so that the U.S. has formal diplomatic relations with Iran?
BROWN: We must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. There is no greater threat in the world. There is no room for nuance with Iran. The U.S. must be clear and unequivocal. Establishing formal relations with Iran while they continue to thumb their nose at the international community is exactly the wrong message.
Formal diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be realized until the Iranian government has opened its nuclear program fully to international inspectors, demonstrated without question that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only, proven it has ceased its support of terrorist organizations, and renounced its calls to “wipe Israel off the map.”
Evidence that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon continues to emerge. It would be counterproductive to embrace this dangerous ambition with the full recognition of the United States government.
I was a strong supporter and sponsor of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions legislation, now law, which hinders Iran’s ability to finance its nuclear program. I was also an original co-sponsor of an amendment to sanction the Central Bank of Iran which has also been signed into law.
WARREN: I support the approach President Obama – joined by a bipartisan consensus in Congress – has taken in working to prevent Iranian development of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world. I support economic sanctions in conjunction with other countries that have placed political pressure on Iran, as well as vigorous diplomacy to try to resolve the situation through negotiations. Like the president, I believe the United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon – but also that careless talk of rushing to war is unhelpful.
Q. With the deficit crisis in the U.S., do you support cutting the State Department’s budget and federal foreign aid? Would you cut the Peace Corps, disaster aid and food assistance to Africa, for example?
BROWN: I’m the second-most bipartisan senator in Congress. Believe me when I tell you that the only way we’re going to fix our debt and deficit problem is by working together. As you know people are hurting in our own country and we must focus our efforts domestically. We need a bipartisan approach to secure a long-term deficit reduction plan.
Foreign aid is important for humanitarian reasons, and to help give us leverage in negotiations involving our own national security. But, while it is a relatively small portion of our budget, we ought not spend a penny more than is necessary to accomplish these vital goals.
Moreover, what’s clear is that Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
No government function should be held completely immune from cuts, and foreign aid is no exception. However, smart investments in diplomacy now can help prevent more costly foreign policy problems later.
The Congressional Budget Office’s annual long-term budget forecast is evidence that our exploding debt and deficits will cripple us if we fail to make tough choices. For example, CBO found that since 2008, U.S. debt has gone from 40 percent of GDP to more than 70 percent, the highest since WWII.
WARREN: Our foreign policy should be smart, tough, and pragmatic, using every tool in the toolbox, including using defense, diplomacy, development, and other tools to advance U.S. interests in the world.
We must remember that diplomacy and development can, in many cases, prevent the need to engage in far more costly wars – costly in lives and in money. Development and diplomacy can help countries from drifting into instability, where terror, criminal networks, and lawlessness can take hold. Development and diplomacy can help create economic growth that enables people to lift themselves from poverty – and grow markets for U.S. companies. And development and diplomacy can advance democracy and human rights, while fighting disease and hunger. These are important benefits – particularly given that international development and diplomacy is only 1% of the federal budget.
At a time when the federal debt is more than $15 trillion, we need to be smart about the budget and about where and how to cut. A budget is about finance and economics, but it is also about our values. We need to cut the tax breaks to the oil and gas industry, the loopholes for hedge fund managers, and the special deals that allow some multinational companies to pay nothing in federal income taxes. That’s where we should start.