1. Is it desirable and practical to base US foreign policy on
consistent support for human rights? Might this help in the struggle
with terrorism, by taking away some of the rationale used by terrorists
to recruit–and by enhancing respect for the United States among
ordinary people around the world?
2. We now have the “Bush doctrine” of preemptive strikes on sources
of threat to the United States, wherever in the world these are lodged.
Would it make sense to have an equivalent doctrine in the case of gross
violations of human rights? The Genocide Convention would seem to have
been an attempt at promoting such a doctrine among the signers–of
which the US is one.
3. The Iraq war has shown the cost of intervening in other nations
alone and–it seems–the Sudan genocide has shown the cost of trying to
work through the UN. Both have run into problems. What is the right
formula for effective action? What are the right uses of unilateral and
multilateral action–given that unilateral action can leave us
isolated, and working through the UN can tie our hands? Are there
alternative institutions and networks that would be more effective than
either approach, such as working more closely with the African Union
and other regional organizations?
4. Secretary General Kofi Annan is proposing to reform the United
Nations and especially the UN Security Council. Do you have confidence
in this process? How should such a reform be carried out? Will the
United States be able to exert its leadership on the reform process
effectively?
5. The UN has been notably slow to take action in Sudan. In
particular, Secretary General Annan is seen by some observers to be an
ineffective leader of the United Nations, more interested in pleasing
all sides than in taking principled action. Do you agree or disagree
with this assessment? If you agree, what should the US do about this
problem in the short and long term?
6. Syria is the head of the UN council on human rights. Sudan has
been strongly supported in its human rights violations by a number of
members of the UN. What would it take to reform the UN so that it
supports other values than simply national sovereignty of each member,
and continuous discussion?
7. Could the world’s nations create a new world institution that has
a value base, and that requires members to meet certain standards of
behavior, including in respect of human rights, in order to join and to
remain in good standing? Would you support this if the United Nations
cannot be improved? Would you support this in any case, to provide
competition to the United Nations? How might this be accomplished?
8. There has been talk by National Security chief Rice of
establishing a new source of peacekeeping forces with rapid response
capabilities, under the auspices of the G7 group of nations. What do
you think of this proposal? Would it have been more effective in
responding to the genocide in Sudan?
9. China has been a major source of support for the government of
Sudan, and China has blocked US-sponsored action in the UN Security
Council. China has been joined in this by Pakistan. Egypt and Saudi
Arabia have taken up the cause of the government of Sudan in the Arab
League and other forums. All have gained stature in the Arab world at
US expense, by siding with Sudan.
China is a large US trading partner, and both Pakistan and Egypt are
recipients of US military and other forms of aid. Saudi Arabia is a
major trading partner. Why have we not been able to gain the help of
these nations in putting pressure on Sudan? What more should be done to
ensure that they help stop the genocide in Sudan, rather than enabling
it and raising their own political profiles by showing themselves
allied against the United States?
