"America needs a new foreign policy"

Girliemen.

Which generation does Pat Buchanan belong to, then? Certainly not the 'greatest' generation, the fucker.

I'd love to see where the globe would go from there, but unfortunately, I think it would be hard to sleep for the frantic screams of the world willing to suck the US collective wang to get them back into the game.

Pat Buchanan said something you might actually agree with! OH NOES.
Activate ILx anti-conservative hivemind!

(1) The war in Iraq is unpopular both at home and abroad
(2) If we were in the empire game, we'd stick it out.
(3) Apparently we're not (PUSSIES), so we should rethink our policy.

I find little to disagree with here. The Bush Doctrine IS failing due to a lack of support (good), Pax Americana might not be a great idea (true), and rethinking our foreign policy is a good idea (hurray!).

He's funny on the McLaughlin Group tho.

It's not the first time he's said something I might agree with, it's just that I already know that I don't agree with his reasons for what he's saying.

It's not so much his observations -- which are of the "well duh" variety -- as the way he frames the issues:

Is this generation of Americans really up to the task? Is it really willing to pay indefinitely in blood and treasure to realize the ambitious agenda George W. Bush has set out?

...Is it not thus apparent the world does not really want an American empire, or American hegemony, or Bush's "democratic revolution"? Is it not equally apparent that we Americans, unwilling to conscript our young or further tax ourselves, cannot sustain a global policy that commits us to defending nations all over this world, most of which do not even like us?

He's pretending that the problem is with the "ambition" of the Bush agenda, and with some policy of "defending nations all over the world," as if this administration actually were propounding some bold notion of global liberty, and as if that's what the rest of the world is rejecting. When the real problem is the egomaniacal "we do whatever the fuck we want/America Fuck YEAH!" posture that these guys came into office with.

Frankly, I can't even tell what Buchanan's saying. If he really believes that the Bushies are promoting global democracy, then is he saying that we shouldn't be promoting global democracy? When he talks about a "new foreign policy" does he -- given his isolationist history -- really mean we should be even more self-centered and ignorant? I can't imagine that by "new foreign policy" he means "more active in international institutions, more willing to use diplomacy than guns, more respectful of treaties and international law." I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want Buchanan setting policy any more than Cheney.

xpost: Hurting otm.

Buchanan is ultimately an isolationist; he's the guy who actually used one of his RNC speeches(1992?) to go "We need to build a WALL around this country!"

xpost Shakey is right. His 2000 campaign ads were so delightful, in the paranoid/iso mold. I remember the one about a guy having a heart attack and dialing 911, then having to go thru an interminable list of "push one for service in spanish, push two for french..." and then dying. the ads ran during WWE shows.

Also, his magazine came out in support for Kerry, didn't it?

This is my feeling as well. I actually agree with everyone w/r/t Pat arriving at the same conclusions as me (vis a vis the war and foreign policy) via logic I don't understand/appreciate. More and more, however, I'm of the mind that "lefties" should start adopting the Republican Big Tent Strategy -- agree with us on just a few issues? Fine! Come on in! Whatever it takes!

Dems are pretty bad at this, lately.

No, it's not. Globalists seek global democracy for worldwide stability, so they can then put the dogs to work. If anything, America needs MORE of an "America FUCK YEAH!" foreign policy--one that is virtually non-existent. One where we stick up only for ourselves, both socially and economically.

The world doesn't want America's help, it is quite clear they are ungrateful and not worthy of the help we offer. That said, fuck the world, go America.

I am confused by this statement. How is DubyaCo's m.o. NOT totally self-serving "America FUCK YEAH!"?

http://www.atmo.se/zino.aspx?pageID=44&documentID=274&articleID=399

Comedy gold!

He does not have Americas interests in mind, he has global corporations interests in mind.

To BushCo, these two interests are probably fairly congruent.

1. Not to be ruled by a higher power, or be accountable to other nations.

2. Not to give, give, give, and give some more, without getting anything return. We'd like just some respect, but apparantly THAT is too much to ask.

3. Not shipping blue collar and white collar jobs across seas using the "labor market" as a guise to pander to self-serving multinational corporations.

4. Not to be dependent on any other country or political entity throughout the world. This goes hand in hand with point #1.

5. Not to fund and help our biggest economic/military opponent: China. When I walk into Wal*Mart, I feel like I'm stabbing America and its greatness in the f*cking back. No more, however.

6. Not to join global initiatives. We are a sovereign nation, we make our own rules. End of story.

7. To get the U.N. off our f*cking soil, and prevent our tax dollars to going to any part of that worthless P.O.S. organization. We give them one year to pack their bags and find a suitable place for relocation (I think Brussels would be an excellent choice).

8. Withdrawl from the WTO.

9. Redeployment of the military, especially the National Guard, to the borders. They are called the National Guard for a reason.

10. Enlargement and greater modernization of the military. Not so that we can invade other countries, however, it'd be to show the rest of the world that we're still ready to kick ass if anyone wants to try us.

11. The Democratic and Republican parties should be dismantled and both sent to political party hell, as well as the 2-party system in general.

12. F*ck Canada. Send more guns up there. Illegally, if possible.

13. Stop calling Europe our allies, and stop helping them. There is a reason America came into existence, and its because our ancestors couldn't stand the continent to begin with. Next time Germany crosses the Rhine, let them do as they please. It doesn't affect us.

14. And for the love of God, lets stop acting like big business has that nation's interests in mind.

Apparently deciding which global initiatives we should sign onto and which we shouldn't isn't "sovereignty".

This one I also feel is somewhat misguided. I'm just enough of an altruist to think that sometimes giving is its own reward. Also I don't necessarily care about "getting some respect", although it depends on what exactly that means -- the way you have it here, it sounds like you mean "people should recognize that the U.S. is teh awesomest" and I disagree with that (even if the U.S. were the awesomest, I wouldn't care if people thought that). But if it means having a base level of "that U.S., that's an OK country", well, I certainly wouldn't expect people to think that of a nation which had a policy of not cooperating (and compromising) w/r/t global issues because it was "too sovereign for that kind of shit". That isn't a respectful attitude towards other nations, and isn't one that should garner respect in return.

abidgred for civility, from what are barack obama's flaws?

Design the perfect US foreign policy! Wait no let me guess Bernie already did it

― El Tomboto

Bernie is awful on foreign policy and basically the entire left acknowledges this

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

I'd start with not giving the Saudis a bunch of money or drone bombing hospitals, how's that?

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

… …

Okay if we want to do this for real, and since I'm usually the hippie in the room at my day job I'm certainly game, should we have a thread?

― El Tomboto

Bombing hospitals is insanely good.

― the ghost of markers

definitely call it the American FP thread

― blog haus aka the scene raver (wins)

for the love of god if you really must do that revive an existing thread, having a new dedicated trump thread is bad enough

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

oh good this should be edifying

― Mordy

pulling out of the Paris Agreement isn't helpful

an isolationist USA wd be God's gift to the world

When I walk into Wal*Mart, I feel like I'm stabbing America and its greatness in the f*cking back.

a little on the nose

First of all it's no longer possible to be isolationist - not even the DPRK gets to do that anymore, if ocean-faring ships didn't convince you, and airplanes, submarines and ICBMs don't convince you, you're an incorrigible cunt who likes to mouth off about shit you willfully refuse to comprehend. Thank god I don't know anybody like that.

That said, the US foreign policy could be much improved, but as I sort of implied on the other thread, it's optimal when it's minimally invasive/destructive/murderous, because it is always developed and executed more or less at the whim of 200M provincial townspeople who don't know why they talk funny over there and who would even eat that?

1. big (nuclear) stick is already evident to everyone, so why not pursue a collaborative, diplomacy-first policy where the goal is open borders and single markets everywhere? we shouldn't be afraid of anyone!
2. we should push fair and safe labor policies on everyone who wants to do business with us - that's what the big stick is FOR - and Erik Loomis is OTM in his book
3. multilateral exercises and confidence building measures should be THE THING that we do with everyone, not as signalling mechanisms (they're good for that, sure) but because they are good things to do! Everybody gets to be in a fight club with us. Let's do it. Have fun. And don't talk about fight club (wink, wink).
4. we should press for a world where extradition treaties are universal and the country with the lightest penalties should almost always win, regardless of the perpetrator's country of origin. Just never let the perp back in to the country where the crimes were committed.

Next time Germany crosses the Rhine, let them do as they please. It doesn't affect us.

― clouded vision, Friday, December 30, 2005 2:18 AM (eleven years ago)

I might agree that labor policies needs to be much more to the center of diplomacy. Chain responsibility + support of unions. Not only does it help to protect Western workers, it's also key to the buildup of a local middle class, which is key to peaceful regime change.

Yes, and to cultural shifts towards egalitarian societies, where women are allowed to drive and LGBTQ folks are allowed to exist

I mean we only have a few more decades - maybe only two, maybe not even that! where we can sustain the degree of economic leverage that allows the US to push the envelope in trade agreements - stop making it about goddamn IP piracy and make it about goddamn worker safety and living wages (granted, what we can't get right at home, we're unlikely to get right overseas).

I guess the even larger point for me is to stop using the DoD and our national security apparatus as our principle means of steering other nations, we should be up front, call C.R.E.A.M. like it is and use our heralded business acumen to effect change to make things better. I think you can be just as machiavellian as state-on-state wrestling requires without having myopic, completely short-term & selfish aims.

But.... bombing stuff is so cool

i worry about orienting US FP around trade. while it may foster friendly relationships in the short run, what about capitalism's inherent destructive tendencies? i think the web of climate change-induced crises is sure to create a need for a culprit and the US exporting its resource-intensive lifestyle everywhere is as good as any.

what would you center us fp around, m bison?

Freud b

oh what a dream conference table in this thread

imagine if i called anybody a "cunt", like some old political snatch

us flag post

Tom's, right?

I'm sure the non-psychotics among you saw my "isolationism" comment as a fantasy. POTUSes will drink the blood of children til our doom.

I think a lot of voters probably responded to Trump's isolationist rhetoric during the campaign, actually. My dad specifically kept citing it.

This is only to say there is an appetite for it.

and what an isolationist

A member of NATO doesn't get to be isolationist. It's fundamentally as simple as that.

This is only to say there is an appetite for it.

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.)

http://product-images.highwire.com/1484370/guns-n-roses-appetite-for-destruction-poster-flag.jpg

what would you center us fp around, m bison?

― Frederik B, Sunday, June 25, 2017 2:52 AM (six hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Idk, that question keeps me up at night.

lol

I wonder about how big should the fleet be

Morbs can you be specific about what you mean by "isolationist" (esp. considering existing treaty obligations)? Do you just mean "no more military actions unless the US or a NATO ally is attacked?" Can it only be an attack by another state? Does "isolationism" extend to trade and humanitarian work? It can mean any of a dozen different things so defining it would help. Maybe.

Considering who you're asking, I really doubt it would...

I'm trying to play nice. It's part of a program of self-improvement.

option 1

POTUSes will drink the blood of children til our doom.

Thank goodness there's ever only one person in the world capable of this crime, so if we just concentrate all our efforts on stopping each successive POTUS, humanity's nightmare of bloodshed will end.

That's pretty bad response to Morbs, the combo of 'if you can't fix it all, why bother-slash-other people can do horrible things so why pretend it's only the President.'

If you're an American citizen, the only world leader who you have even some theoretical sway over is the President.

You don't want to get labeled with the isolationist rep because history but 3/4 of a century of hyper-interventionism has not exactly been a boon to humanity. If you want a foreign policy not centered around destabilization and directly undermining states hostile to our business interests, it's going to look a lot more isolationist.

You don't even get the point Aimless is making, do you?

If the US didn't intervene and destabilize, quite a lot of the time someone else would step in and do it. Look at Syria. It's not about 'yeah, but I can only influence my president', it's about looking at what's best for the world overall, and leaving the chessboard to Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc, might not be good for anyone.

Iran and Saudi Arabia (and arguably Russia) the products of our foreign policy? Huh.

Um. No?

Oh, Freddiepaws.

Try telling the Iranians, Saudis or Russians that their national governments and foreign policies are simply byproducts of US foreign policy.

On Iran: AIOC was a British corporation, and Winston Churchill played a key role in the coup. Saudi Arabia has been a kingdom since 1932, and saying Russia is the product of US foreign policy? Come on.

It's so self-absorbed. Nobody but Americans has any agency at all, it's like the rest of us are all just puppets in your great morality play.

Try telling the Iranians, Saudis or Russians that their national governments and foreign policies are simply byproducts of US foreign policy.

The Iranians who overthrew the Shah we installed and have a very long and specific list of grievances with the CIA? Yeah, they'd definitely not agree about US intervention.

Sigh, the US didn't install the shah... You really know fuck all about the world...

I didn't say the US didn't intervene in Saudi Arabia or Iran's internal affairs. And we obviously fought a long Cold War with the Russians, more or less from the moment the Kerensky government fell, with a brief interlude of cooperation in WWII. But all these nations all have extremely long histories and deeply rooted cultural traditions and attitudes that play a far bigger role in their sense of nationhood and ambitions in the world than the USA ever did.

That's a fascinating semantic gambit to base your argument on Freddie... but mostly I just want to hear more about Churchill's tenure with the CIA.

You think the CIA did the Iran coup? And on their own? At this point I don't even know where your stupidity begins.

The Shah was installed by an Anglo-Soviet coup, so using him as an example of how US foreign policy rules the world is stupid beyond belief. BRITAIN played the key role in fucking up Iran long into the 20th century, and still played a big part in the coup in 1953.

I'm deeply skeptical about American Exceptionalism, so as long as the isolationist left is steeped in it to almost as large a degree as the neo-conservatives was, I'm pretty good with them not having any influence at all. Say what you want about Killary, at least she read up a bit on other people before she decided to kill them and drink their blood.

You think the CIA did the Iran coup?

...

This is boring can we skip to the chapter about ireland

It's almost like the CIA's role is... a matter of public record.

Milo, where do you get your information from? Because you're clearly not being well informed.

Ah yes, Ireland. The US dronebombed your potato harvest, right?

It's almost like the British role in the coup is a matter of public record as well...

In large part, the CIA itself. It's craaaaaazy.

Huh, you mean the US's closest ally was also involved with American foreign policy. That's difficult to believe.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that Tony Blair supported the American lies that initiated the Iraq War.

Wow rude fred

You just can't think of non-Americans as equal, can you milo?

it's true, same size military, same size intelligence services, same size economies, the lot

i wanna hear more about how the soviets overthrew Mosaddegh

i wanna hear about how the UK decided to disband its own Empire just for the hell of it post WWII

You just can't think of non-Americans as equal, can you milo?

I don't think you're representative of anybody, milo, your stupidity is clearly exceptional. So don't use other liberals as a shield.

British post-war foreign prestige was depleted after wwii, but didn't collapse until the Suez crisis in 56. The last Shah was installed by the Anglo-Soviet invasion of 1941. And that the British tried to keep up acting like an empire after wwii is exactly a reason to think the world would have stayed shit even if the US didn't influence it.

Freddie, where was the Shah circa late 1953?

*walks in*

*sees protracted fight btwn milo and Frederik*

*leaves quickly, leaving hat and cane behind*

Freddie, where was the Shah circa late 1953?

― El Tuomasbot (milo z), 25. juni 2017 23:20 (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

In Iran? He left the country during the week-long coup in August, true.

Is there a holiday I need to know about?

Nah, just trying to figure out your balance of attempted pedantry and actual stupidity.

'Stupid' is one of the worst approaches of attack in an argument guys. If true you needn't resort to saying it. If untrue the accusations reveals you as badly shook. Strive for better.

I had high hopes

Frederik is actually 75, helped Kissinger do Allende

'Stupid' is one of the worst approaches of attack in an argument guys.

https://media.giphy.com/media/zhbrTTpmSCYog/giphy.gif

That gif is more pertinent to the thread title than anything else posted so far

To sum up, it would be a good idea to let foreign policy be guided by knowledge and inquisition, rather than lazy received wisdom and ideologies that are mostly about US rather than the rest of the world.

Any ideas for how to deal with the Saudi Arabia / Iran conflict? Feel like that's the gordian knot going forward the next many years.

this is worth reading - the blog post and the review (I ran out of free articles at thenation.com? gee thanks ILX)

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/08/left-foreign-policy-look-like

from the Ryan Cooper book review of the McGovern biography:

And in any case, American politicians can’t be expected to govern the nation on an “America is bad” basis. If the left can’t propose an argument that is critical of excessive military force but also serves the national interest, it ends up ceding political ground to the interventionists.

and from Loomis' conclusion:

What was perhaps most remarkable about the Sanders campaign to me is that for all his attacks on Hillary, he completely avoided the one issue where she was most vulnerable–her hawkish foreign policy. And that’s because he simply didn’t have a foreign policy at the time. Ceding the field to the center and the right with nothing more than moral intonations against intervention is a disastrous policy that indirectly causes people to lose their lives because there’s not a well-articulated alternative to bad policy decisions.

I think those are both interesting points. OTOH I think the mainstream of foreign policy debate is rather limited in parameters because it starts from the premise "What should we be doing with this gigantic armed force that we have"

And there's an assumption in that second one that simple non-intervention isn't an alternative.

Well, it can start with different premises that aren't armed-forces-centric, but it is inevitable that someone will eventually say "we should use the greatest military on the planet to accomplish X" and then no matter what you wanted to talk about, now you have to talk about that.

the military-industrial complex is a helluva drug, i dunno how a nation, especially one that's never lost a war on its own turf in the memory-span of anyone alive, is gonna wean itself off of it without some kind of cataclysmic geopolitical event

Surely there's no reason for the left to let mainstream fp doctrine define our own discussions?

I mean there are disadvantages to being, say Bolivia, but I don't think Bolivians are debating where they should intervene next.

But even taking for granted that we're going to have this giant military industrial complex forever, I don't understand why the debate has to be so myopic as to seemingly *never* consider non-intervention as a viable option. It's always covert vs overt, air support vs ground troops etc.

Non-intervention is literally the most common us option. There are tons of fp issues where the us does not intervene.

wait the US investigates flag posting?

feel like sanders' "lack of foreign policy" was because he was basically scared, and justifiably so, to advance a left-wing critique of the military-industrial complex and war-hawking in the middle east. it wouldn't be hard to cobble one together, even a half-assed critique (it's not as if his domestic policies were all hashed out comprehensively to the satisfaction of the wonks tbh), so i don't think that it was exactly beyond him

i'd like to think the largely positive reaction (or at least muted negative reaction) to corbyn's criticism of iraq ahead of the uk election might embolden someone in us politics to do the same but lol us militarism

I honestly don't think he has given much thought to foreign policy, "scared" never came into it. Which is really too bad cause an actively anti-imperialist stance a la Corbyn would have likely made him more popular.

I honestly don't think he has given much thought to foreign policy, "scared" never came into it. Which is really too bad cause an actively anti-imperialist stance a la Corbyn would have likely made him more popular.

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), Wednesday, August 30, 2017 10:35 AM (twenty-five seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like an old lefty who visited nicaragua in the 80s probably has exactly the foreign policy ideas you'd expect him to have, yet he didn't put them out there when he campaigned.

The 80s were a long time ago.

'actively anti-imperialist' is not a well thought out stance.

k

You can't base your whole policy on just being against something, you have to offer something else instead. Plus it's just that 'america is bad' thing that lawyergun is talking about.

Ah would ye look where everybody is

You can't base your whole policy on just being against something

Jesus dude I wasn't outlining a 12-point plan, just a stance

Ok, but the problem is that the left has tons of stances, but needs that 12-point plan.

That plan is not going to come from an American politician for a long time, if ever

so you're saying the left needs... a wide stance

That plan is not going to come from an American politician for a long time, if ever

― a serious and fascinating fartist (Simon H.), 30. august 2017 20:11 (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So let's grassroot it!

I'm not trying to use this issue to shit on Sanders, I want to hear ideas towards a 12-step plan.

its too bad he was always talking about irrelevant things like minimum health care and free schooling for all and not talking about what he would do with all that money we need to spend on wars.

minimum wage, public option, free school. yeah yeah what is the plan tho lol

great plan we have now, let's keep it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA

So Adam you think Presidential candidates, whose Constitutional duties include making treaties and appointing ambassadors, should have no foreign policy positions at all? I want to make sure I have this straight.

Like you know foreign policy and the C-i-C position *are actually part of the job*, right? They're right there in Article II and everything.

I'm not trying to use this issue to shit on Sanders, I want to hear ideas towards a 12-step plan.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, August 30, 2017 1:32 PM (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

First, admit you have a problem.

Yes! That's exactly what I want the left to do!

The what?

Simon's arbitrary (Freudian?) choice of "12" up above has paid off

the C-i-C position

sounds hawt, do u have a diagram

or maybe a lurid illustration on a grecian urn

I think a us president whose position on treaties was "nope" and who didn't appoint any ambassadors would be alright tbh

But let's not be obtuse when discussing us foreign policy nobody immediately thinks about treaties and ferrero rocher soirees so it would be good if ppl didn't start with these items, which come some way behind invading and bombing other actual countries ito 'activities america does when on hols'

I think a us president whose position on treaties was "nope" and who didn't appoint any ambassadors would be alright tbh

We have one right now. How's he measuring up to those expectations?

In all fairness, the rest of the post man cmon

I read the rest of your post as a variation on "OTOH I think the mainstream of foreign policy debate is rather limited in parameters because it starts from the premise 'What should we be doing with this gigantic armed force that we have'"

The more I think about it the more the notion of a grass roots foreign policy seems impracticable; grass roots politics work with issues where the ppl participating have a stake in the outcome, so you can have a reactive grass roots foreign policy ("we don't want this war"), but not anything beyond that I don't think. Of course ppl with ties to other countries can and will intervene on their behalf, but the sum of that hardly leads to a workable foreign policy model, and...beyond that all you can get is some vague ideological solidarity which will inevitably be complicated as soon as it rubs up against the specific circumstances of different conflicts.

It's a top-down area of politics, at least as long as we're still stuck in the nation-state model, I think.

what about the big movement to cancel 3rd world debt?

Nobody is saying it is easy, but are people actually trying to do something for the world, or do they just want to shout about drones?

I think an easy goal for a truly leftist politician would be to end the chummy relationship between the US and the Saudis, who are seriously bad actors to whom we are in thrall for some reason (*cough* oil *cough*)

Chris Murphy of Conn. has been one of the few outspoken elected officials about this, but even his statements could stand to be a lot more forceful

Fred, not so much "it isn't easy" as "it doesn't make sense".

I don't buy the idea that you can't go "what the govt is doing in this case is wrong" w/o adding a "and here's my great plan on how to do it better!"; individual private citizens have neither the knowledge nor the power that governments have in foreign policy, of course their role is going to be predominantly reactive.

I think an easy goal for a truly leftist politician would be to end the chummy relationship between the US and the Saudis, who are seriously bad actors to whom we are in thrall for some reason (*cough* oil *cough*)

― rock and roll tucci coo (voodoo chili), 31. august 2017 17:23 (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not sure it will be 'easy', but yeah, that seems an obvious goal of a leftist foreign policy. It's not easy, though, because oil is a powerful drug. Obama did two things: The Iran deal, and fracking, and none of those were particularly popular.

But Daniel, it's just pragmatism. If you have two groups, one saying 'try this!' and one saying 'don't try that', then the pendulum is going to swing between doing bad things and not doing anything.

Say what you want about the tenets of neoconservatism, at least it's an ethos.

when i said easy, i meant an easy idea for people to get behind, and one that demonstrates a real difference between the candidate and the foreign policy consensus.

Also, I'm not one for centrist-bashing, but Frederik really is the "better things aren't possible" tweet made flesh

No, I agree with that; what I disagree with is the idea that this should come from a grass-roots movement, as opposed to party representatives, academics and *ahem* technocrats.

(xp)

here is my six point plan that I just made up this morning, sorry if it sounds like oratory but that's how platform planks sound imo

1. Energy policy is foreign policy. If we want to be a model democratic republic for other nations, we must achieve energy independence, and we must achieve it sustainably.

2. Diplomacy first. We carry a big stick, like Teddy Roosevelt said (he was quoting an African proverb). Our position on the world stage is too often defined by the scope of our military options, leading to interventions where we sometimes should not intervene. But what we also have is the greatest diplomatic corps in the world, and while we can advance the interests of America and our allies without even suggesting the threat of military force, we will always choose the most peaceful option.

3. Human rights are paramount in our diplomatic relationships. We expect our allies and trade partners to respect those rights, and the rights of the workers who make the goods we import. We will sanction those who violate basic human dignity and endanger the lives of working people, wherever they are from.

4. We cannot solve the greatest problems facing the world by ourselves. If we want a safe, healthy, better world for our children and our grandchildren, we need allies who trust us to stick to our promises. The commitments we make to our fellow nations cannot be renegotiated or walked back, and we will never make arguments unsupported by the facts when we speak before the United Nations. Our word is bond.

5. Some could argue that is already unnecessary to have a permanent US military presence on every continent, but we cannot draw down our bases overseas without deliberate forethought and careful consideration of the needs and expectations of our allies, especially our host countries. We will, however, make concerted efforts to ensure a peaceful world with significantly fewer Department of Defense installations in foreign countries.

6. The nations of the Americas are our neighbors. We will treat them with consideration, respect and generosity like any good neighbor should. When they are in need, we will offer to lend a hand. As the most powerful country in our part of the world, we have a responsibility to the community of the Americas to ensure our continents are stable, safe, and lawful, for all of our citizens.

It's less that I have a problem with "technocrats" implementing our foreign policy than that I take issue with the interests that seem to direct it -- resource extraction industries like oil and mining, anti-labor forces, the defense industry etc.

I mean again you have to examine premises. The idea that our current foreign policy starts from the philosophical question of how should the US make the world better strikes me as far fetched, unless your vision of a better world aligns with Ayn Rand's.

Yes, unless you can uncouple policy from lobbying (defence, foreign governments, business, etc) you won't even be able to make a start on reform.

The idea that American foreign policy really even serves the American interest, let alone the world's, seems a stretch.

I think - and this is sort of backed up by the fact that the last truly left-wing foreign policy was unearthed in a biography of McGovern, because of course - that the left has been generally allergic to develop a set of solid foreign policy platform planks (other than basically "no more stupid wars, only smart ones") is due to massive apprehension that the media & centrist / neoliberal hawks (I realize I may have just repeated myself) will just dump all over any heterodox ideas from the Democratic Party as unrealistic, woolly-headed nonsense.

And sure, that's probably unavoidable, but the message should be to hammer home that none of these goals or ideas are unrealistic at all, it's the constant adventuring, doing basically nothing about the foreign oil addiction, and imagining that drones are the answer to terrorism that are unrealistic.

Yes, unless you can uncouple policy from lobbying (defence, foreign governments, business, etc) you won't even be able to make a start on reform.

Uh, that would make for a truly ridiculous foreign policy, wouldn't it? I mean if you are going to listen to your generals, your allies, or your domestic industry, then where exactly would you be getting your information from to make decisions and negotiate with?

I think the verb phrase you need isn't "uncouple policy from" but perhaps "dilute the influence of"

are going to / aren't going to

The correct wording is probably 'decouple policy from direct or indirect personal / party financial gain'. Nobody objects to politicians receiving information, it's an issue when that information is accompanied by a cheque.

that's why it's illegal to bribe an official?

but if it's a stretch to even build a foreign policy platform that isn't basically the status quo, it seems like even more of a stretch to say that future Secretaries of State / members of the SPP / senior career diplomats / generals / etc all have to have big beautiful cooling-off periods before they can go through the revolving door to their big corporate job

six point plan in bumper sticker format

1. energy independence
2. diplomacy first
3. human rights = workers rights
4. uphold our commitments
5. reduce permanent bases overseas
6. make all of the the americas great again

I mean #4 shouldn't even have to be a platform plank but after Trump and GWB it feels not only necessary to say we'll act in good faith on the intl stage but also like a big old batting practice fastball that you'd be an idiot not to mash into the parking lot

that's why it's illegal to bribe an official?

Lol. To take a pretty clear cut example, there is apparently nothing illegal in Dana Rohrabacher getting tens of thousands of Dollars in campaign donations from an Albanian-American businessman and abusing his position on committees to advance the interests of one faction in Albanian domestic politics. There is nothing illegal in Qatar giving $1m to the John McCain Foundation. It's entirely within the rules for Erik Prince to donate a quarter of a million to a Trump super-PAC and be given special access to argue for the privatisation of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Other countries, including the UK, have flawed but pretty workable restrictions on campaign financing, campaign spending, etc, etc. It doesn't stop people from making terrible foreign policy decisions or being unduly influenced by the corporate sector but it removes the need to generate unbelievable amounts of money to run viable campaigns and the need to do favours for the people providing that money.

when we discuss actual foreign policy I think about the people who do the work and have expertise, not congresscritters who have no real role in the process other than to bloviate.

And again, I find it funny that your bias is to always jump in and minimize Trump's involvement or exposure to influence when mobbed-up Russian spymasters and affiliated scum are laundering money through the POTUS' family business, but Erik Prince donating to a super-PAC or Dana Rohrabacher (dana rohrabacher) getting a whole five figures from some Albanians is evidence of our broken and corrupt system at work, enabling sinister machinations and woeful corruption.

I've posted a lot on Trump's ties to money laundering, convicted criminals, corrupt officials, etc and his absolutely transparent conflicts of interest hardly require much comment. My point remains that he is not a complete aberration. Manafort was being Manafort decades before Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-war-games-with-a-vengeance-in-belarus-will-he-ever-leave

Vox media been reading that old ilxor dot com again

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/09/principles-progressive-foreign-policy-guest-post-yakov-feygin-alex-hazanov

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/9/5/16220054/democrats-foreign-policy-think-tanks

Will the meteorite please come save us all from the fucking Think Tank paradigm

From the LGM guest post that I copped the vox URL from:

But we believe that a hard-headed progressive foreign policy that depends on more than reflexive criticisms of American empire is possible, especially if we start by accepting that international political economy forms the playing field on which states execute their decisions. In other words, the fight for economic and social justice must be carried out through, and with, the tools of economic order.

Yes, exactly

So Bernie made a speech: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21/16345600/bernie-sanders-full-text-transcript-foreign-policy-speech-westminster Seems quite important to what this thread is about.

Also, I'm reading this paper on kleptocracy, capital flight and what should be done: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/20161020JudahTheKleptocracyCurseRethinkingContainment.pdf

In 1991, Russia’s first post-Soviet Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar approached the CIA to ask them to help retrieve billions stolen from the country by KGB agents during the Soviet collapse. The response he received from the CIA, acting on instructions from the White House, was that the agency could locate the money but “capital flight is capital flight.”39 This attitude has seriously undermined American foreign policy. It should not be misunderstood as unfortunate and harmless theft. In the developing world corruption is a major killer, taking multitudinous forms, from stolen healthcare and infrastructure budgets, and turning them into deadly personal extortion. One estimate from the anti- poverty group One blames corruption for 3.6 million deaths per year.40 This is because corruption is spectacularly connected to state failure, and modern offshore financial mechanisms allow ruling elites to pillage with impunity and invest securely in the West; the ease of this process has encouraged the plundering of national budgets, which has crippled development in the world’s poorest societies, weakened fragile states, stymied democracy, and fostered violent extremism with choked life chances. A poignant counterfactual for foreign policy practitioners to ask themselves is, “how different would Russia look today if the CIA had blocked illicit capital flight?”

nice to see Bernie taking an interesting tack on foreign policy, esp as the majority of Dems voted yes to that massive round of defense spending

To be fair, a lot of the lefty democrats who voted yes on that military spending bill have an election coming up and it would be far too easy for their opponents to work up a "Senator Warren doesn't care about the troops" ad.

As always, reelection is the first, second, and third concern for any elected official

the easy answer to that is "i don't trust trump to protect our brave troops"

Is this the first time in decades that a major US politician has advocated an international order where the US is not a dominant superpower? I can't recall this in my lifetime but I'm not an expert.

Depends on how you define "major" but I think yes.

Simon H's flippant "easy answer" has been responsible for probably hundreds of Democratic losses over the years. The calculus is that it is better not to bring up the question at all. The defense budget is as American as baseball, light beer and barbecue.

I guess I was thinking "major" as in "has some kind of broad support and recognition outside his or her own district; might have a credible chance of influencing party policy". More major than Dennis Kucinich, I think? Jesse Jackson would probably count.

The conclusion from the Hudson Report:

What can the U.S. do about this? Unlike the UK, the U.S. can overhaul the system. The same way that George F. Kennan developed a policy of containment for the Soviet Union to stop authoritarian communism spreading, it is urgently in the interest of the U.S. today to develop containment for kleptocrats. Kleptocratic containment will be about disarming authoritarian elites, reasserting Western law, reaffirming Western values, firewalling Western institutions, and closing down Western hypocrisy. The Looting Machine is doing more damage to the West than its enemies, undermining democracy and development worldwide, and empowering authoritarians both in their countries and in Western capitals. This is why kleptocratic containment is so important. It is about reasserting control over globalization. This can be done with two simple objectives: committing the U.S. to ending anonymity in global finance and enforcing strict U.S. anti-money laundering laws against Western enablers. Developing both the right legislation and the right enforcement mechanisms to achieve these clear goals must be one of the next administration’s highest priorities–if it is serious about standing for democracy.

This could be a no-brainer for Sanders - or whoever takes over his mantle. Combining an interesting new tack on Foreign Policy with his greatest hits about Wall Street and the global financial elite. #KleptocraticContainment.

For us Europeans: Caviar Diplomacy - How Azerbaijan Silenced the Council of Europe: http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/esi_document_id_131.pdf

This is where Sanders' approach breaks down for me:

Inequality, corruption, oligarchy and authoritarianism are inseparable. They must be understood as part of the same system, and fought in the same way. Around the world we have witnessed the rise of demagogues who once in power use their positions to loot the state of its resources. These kleptocrats, like Putin in Russia, use divisiveness and abuse as a tool for enriching themselves and those loyal to them.

The problem is, though it's of course important to understand those for things as part of the same system, it doesn't follow from that point that every part has to be fought the same way. Every part has to be fought in unique tactical ways. It's where his lack of imagination betrays him, and he just returns to his talking points about inequality.

you know something about a lack of imagination and returning talking points about inequality

always rich to see someone privileged to live in a country w no ballooning defense budget trot out the same old bullshit. just like you living in a country with free health care and then going on about how it will never work in America.

honestly you sound like the same assholes in the US govt who got theirs and don't want anyone else to have it.

lol this bloviating about it's important to understand. you are living in a bubble on the other side of the world. you have no fucking clue

Jesus Adam wtf

This could be a no-brainer for Sanders - or whoever takes over his mantle. Combining an interesting new tack on Foreign Policy with his greatest hits about Wall Street and the global financial elite. #KleptocraticContainment.

It certainly sounds like a no-brainer - who likes kleptocracy? - but nothing is ever quite so straightforward. The Kleptocracy Initiative is headed by the editor of neo-con rag The American Interest and has Bill Browder (who was a firm advocate of Putin and looted upwards of $100m a year from Russia before getting muscled out by similar corrupt officials to the ones he was working with) on the advisory board. Browder is justifiably aggrieved about having his assets stolen but still happy to boast about the days when he was hoovering them up for (at his reckoning) 0.3% of their true market value.

At my count at least five or six, but quite possibly more, of the advisory board / writers work, or have worked, for Leg@tum. The Leg@tum Institute is a think tank / pressure group founded by the kiwi Ch@ndler brothers, who were the single largest foreign investors in Russia during the 90s and built an enormous fortune looting state industries with the connivance of a lax / corrupt government. Incidentally, the head of Leg@tum UK was also the head of Vote Leave and it's arguably one of the most influential pressure groups calling for Hard Brexit, albeit one that almost nobody has ever heard of. They are the dictionary definition of the "global financial elite".

Throw in a couple of journalists and academics who have no interest in anything other than Russia / the CIS (David Satter, Karen Dawisha, both controversial in their own ways) and the entire project looks less like an attempt to "contain kleptocracy" in any meaningful sense than an attempt to contain / open-up Russia, with a few articles about China and others as a fig-leaf.

Africa, India, ASEAN, Hispanoamerica (other than Venezuela) and the Middle East (other than Iran) are apparently not considered kleptocratic enough to require much dedicated attention. The majority of the content outside of the CIS, when it appears, seems to be written by C@sey Mich@el, a mildly hawkish (though very earnest) grad-student whose primary field expertise is derived from having taught ESL in Kyrgyzstan for a year, iirc. There are no posts tagged for Indonesia, six for Nigeria, forty-one for Azerbaijan.

If your interest is in containing Russia / Iran / Venezuela / China, it may or may not be an effective approach. If your interest is in global justice, stability and advancing the situation of the poorest and least powerful then aligning your cause with the people who who happily pushed millions into penury and an early death, destabilising and corrupting the state as they went, is not the way to do it unless we also consider why they are so keen on having unfettered access to their old stomping grounds again. We can also wonder how committed two of the most secretive billionaires in the world really are to the cause of financial transparency.

There's a lot in Judah's report i think is broadly correct, and some of the proposals are sensible. Cracking down on the lobbying industry is critical. Adopting it without, at the same time, proposing similar mechanisms to tackle vulture capitalism, the looting of government assets by non-government actors, the legality of shell companies, domestic, as well as international, tax havens and the like would be sending the message "stop stealing from your citizens, that's our job" - and, as such, is better suited to an offshoot of the RAND Corporation than a quasi-leftist politician.

Sanders, or whoever, needs to put meat on the bones of how they're going to address this but the isolated, "tactical" approach pushed by hard-right think tanks with vested interests can't be at the core. The details are important but without rethinking how the US interacts with the corrupt governments it likes, as well as the ones it doesn't, and redefining the moral and legal expectations on US capital, it won't come close to being the kind of transformative shift in direction required.

I disagree with Tombot frequently but he's absolutely right that a new foreign policy needs to be ambitious, moral, have environmental / QoL / development issues at the heart of it and offer a vision of the US as a partner in improving lives. If it's not also deeply unpopular with the likes of the Hudson Institute it's probably not going to amount to much.

"It certainly sounds like a no-brainer - who likes kleptocracy? - but nothing is ever quite so straightforward. The Kleptocracy Initiative is headed by the editor of neo-con rag The American Interest and has Bill Browder (who was a firm advocate of Putin and looted upwards of $100m a year from Russia before getting muscled out by similar corrupt officials to the ones he was working with) on the advisory board. Browder is justifiably aggrieved about having his assets stolen but still happy to boast about the days when he was hoovering them up for (at his reckoning) 0.3% of their true market value.

At my count at least five or six, but quite possibly more, of the advisory board / writers work, or have worked, for Leg@tum. The Leg@tum Institute is a think tank / pressure group founded by the kiwi Ch@ndler brothers, who were the single largest foreign investors in Russia during the 90s and built an enormous fortune looting state industries with the connivance of a lax / corrupt government. Incidentally, the head of Leg@tum UK was also the head of Vote Leave and it's arguably one of the most influential pressure groups calling for Hard Brexit, albeit one that almost nobody has ever heard of. They are the dictionary definition of the "global financial elite".

Throw in a couple of journalists and academics who have no interest in anything other than Russia / the CIS (David Satter, Karen Dawisha, both controversial in their own ways) and the entire project looks less like an attempt to "contain kleptocracy" in any meaningful sense than an attempt to contain / open-up Russia, with a few articles about China and others as a fig-leaf.

Africa, India, ASEAN, Hispanoamerica (other than Venezuela) and the Middle East (other than Iran) are apparently not considered kleptocratic enough to require much dedicated attention. The majority of the content outside of the CIS, when it appears, seems to be written by C@sey Mich@el, a mildly hawkish (though very earnest) grad-student whose primary field expertise is derived from having taught ESL in Kyrgyzstan for a year, iirc. There are no posts tagged for Indonesia, six for Nigeria, forty-one for Azerbaijan.

If your interest is in containing Russia / Iran / Venezuela / China, it may or may not be an effective approach. If your interest is in global justice, stability and advancing the situation of the poorest and least powerful then aligning your cause with the people who who happily pushed millions into penury and an early death, destabilising and corrupting the state as they went, is not the way to do it unless we also consider why they are so keen on having unfettered access to their old stomping grounds again. We can also wonder how committed two of the most secretive billionaires in the world really are to the cause of financial transparency."

This is mostly just an advanced ad hominem argument. It is of course correct, but it doesn't tackle the argument in the report. And seeing as we've already established that there is a serious lack of left wing think tanks on Foreign Policy, cutting out right wing think tanks would lead to paralysis. In fact, if the argument is that taking arguments we like would be 'aligning' ourselves with the people we are taking from, then I think we have a good reason for why the Koch brothers would finance the writing of this stuff. After all, if they write it, then the left can't ever adopt it!

"There's a lot in Judah's report i think is broadly correct, and some of the proposals are sensible. Cracking down on the lobbying industry is critical. Adopting it without, at the same time, proposing similar mechanisms to tackle vulture capitalism, the looting of government assets by non-government actors, the legality of shell companies, domestic, as well as international, tax havens and the like would be sending the message "stop stealing from your citizens, that's our job" - and, as such, is better suited to an offshoot of the RAND Corporation than a quasi-leftist politician.

Sanders, or whoever, needs to put meat on the bones of how they're going to address this but the isolated, "tactical" approach pushed by hard-right think tanks with vested interests can't be at the core. The details are important but without rethinking how the US interacts with the corrupt governments it likes, as well as the ones it doesn't, and redefining the moral and legal expectations on US capital, it won't come close to being the kind of transformative shift in direction required.

I disagree with Tombot frequently but he's absolutely right that a new foreign policy needs to be ambitious, moral, have environmental / QoL / development issues at the heart of it and offer a vision of the US as a partner in improving lives. If it's not also deeply unpopular with the likes of the Hudson Institute it's probably not going to amount to much."

This is broadly correct, but there's nothing stopping Sanders or anyone else on the left from developing those more broader policies. Seeing as how tax shelters and financial regulation are at the center of the argument, it should not be too hard to develop something that would be opposed by the Koch's of the world.

I mean, these are the two 'simple objectives': "committing the U.S. to ending anonymity in global finance and enforcing strict U.S. anti-money laundering laws against Western enablers." How does that not work as a left-wing position?

You can think of it as an ad hom attack or you can look at it as context. When the same people, or those they represent, have a 25-year-plus track record of exploiting friendly language (reform! choice! democratisation!, etc) and, in many cases, potentially positive policy actions to immiserate millions, the context matters.

Additionally, the strategic focus on countries the US has a grudge against runs the risk of engendering the same cynicism about financial transparency as Bush-era "human rights" talk.

Full financial transparency and the strict enforcement of robust anti-money-laundering laws are, imo, absolutely essential in any notional left-wing foreign policy but they are not inherently left-wing on their own.

They become left-wing when they're combined with policies to prevent those reforms simply opening up new avenues for foreign / non-state actors to fill their pockets.

It's not as though no work is being done on this, or other pressing international issues, outside of Washington think tanks. There are any number of NGOs and entire departments of the UN, dedicated to pushing for reform of financial systems, development, the arms trade, etc, etc. The ideas haven't been lacking - the politicians with the guts to adopt them, even when they counter conventional US interests, have.

The thing where I get a bit tired, is that I can go to the Kleptocratic Initiative webpage, and find interviews and links to stuff like this: http://www.gfintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/GFI-IFF-Report-2017_final.pdf and https://www.law.ua.edu/misc/hamill/Chapter%2010--Business%20Tax%20Stories%20(Foundation).pdf and NGOs and all manner of things.

While you on the other hand only offer 'No! Don't read that' and some vague notion of 'any number of' other people. And of course, as always, your main complaint is that they are too critical of Russia. Which, seeing as Russia is becoming more and more agressive, and that just in general is nearby, is neither weird nor nefarious.

This is nonsense:

"Full financial transparency and the strict enforcement of robust anti-money-laundering laws are, imo, absolutely essential in any notional left-wing foreign policy but they are not inherently left-wing on their own.

They become left-wing when they're combined with policies to prevent those reforms simply opening up new avenues for foreign / non-state actors to fill their pockets."

How can financial transparency and combating money-laundering not be inherently left-wing? And how can it open up 'new avenues for foreign / non-state actors to fill their pockets.'? You skip so many steps it becomes nonsensical.

You know so much about this, ShariVari, and it's really frustrating when you don't offer any actual constructive information, and reduces your arguments to the extent they become impossible to follow/nonsensical.

I am not a think tank and have no particular interest in providing you with legal / policy documents or doing your googling for you when it comes to NGOs active in this or other fields. If secretive billionaires and the Department of Justice want to pay me to do this, i am open to offers, though.

I'm not telling you to stop reading anything, i'm suggesting that you think about how technical mechanisms like better financial transparency laws should be placed in the context of a broader raft of left-wing reforms that prevent potentially positive measures from being abused.

Financial transparency, on its own, doesn't stop money from being extracted from developing economies. Shifting control of key assets from domestic kleptocrats to domestic or foreign oligarchs, which is the primary interest of a lot of the people backing these proposals, is not left wing. It's an essential part of a reform package but it isn't, independently, going to help people in those countries.

"I am not a think tank and have no particular interest in providing you with legal / policy documents or doing your googling for you when it comes to NGOs active in this or other fields. If secretive billionaires and the Department of Justice want to pay me to do this, i am open to offers, though."

Everyone gets this, but what on earth is then your interest in constantly pointing out that the stuff I find is too critical of Russia?

"Financial transparency, on its own, doesn't stop money from being extracted from developing economies. Shifting control of key assets from domestic kleptocrats to domestic or foreign oligarchs, which is the primary interest of a lot of the people backing these proposals, is not left wing. It's an essential part of a reform package but it isn't, independently, going to help people in those countries."

This is nonsense once again. Those three sentences do not fit together, and do not add up to a coherent argument.

Just to get this discussion back on track, these are apparently the recommendations from Global Financial Integrity:

Beneficial Ownership
• Governments should establish public registries of verified beneficial ownership information on all legal entities, and all banks should know the true beneficial owner(s) of any account in their financial institution.

Anti-Money Laundering
• Government authorities should adopt and fully implement all of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) anti-money laundering recommendations; laws already in place should be strongly enforced.

Country-by-Country Reporting
• Policymakers should require multinational companies to publicly disclose their revenues, profits, losses, sales, taxes paid, subsidiaries, and staff levels on a country-by-country basis.

Tax Information Exchange
• All countries should actively participate in the worldwide movement towards the automatic exchange of tax information as endorsed by the OECD and the G20.

Trade Misinvoicing
• Customs agencies should treat trade transactions involving a tax haven with the highest level of scrutiny.
• Governments should significantly boost their customs enforcement by equipping and training officers to better detect intentional misinvoicing of trade transactions, particularly through access to real-time world market pricing information at a detailed commodity level.
• GFI has developed a product to assist governments in the detection of potential misinvoicing in real time: GFTradeTM is a proprietary risk assessment application developed to enable customs officials to determine if goods are priced outside typical ranges for comparable products.2

Sustainable Development
• Governments should sign on to the Addis Tax Initiative to further support efforts to curb IFFs as a key component of the development agenda.

Financial transparency, on its own, doesn't stop money from being extracted from developing economies. Shifting control of key assets from domestic kleptocrats to domestic or foreign oligarchs, which is the primary interest of a lot of the people backing these proposals, is not left wing. It's an essential part of a reform package but it isn't, independently, going to help people in those countries.

These sentences make sense together to me (+ obv flattery gets you anywhere these days)

I think transparency and scrutiny and information sharing are all great - I argue for and work on all of those things in my own field - but there are lots of fundamental issues in developing nations and resource extraction economies that make those things all but impossible to achieve. Making capital flight and kleptocracy more difficult around the world strikes me as a goal that depends on a lot of other good faith initiatives and confidence building measures succeeding first (or as SV points out it will most likely just wind up engendering even more cynicism about the US role in the global order).

The central country that needs to get it's shit together on Beneficial Ownership Registry is apparently the US. The biggest Looting Machine in the world is the City of London. The whole point of why it's good left-wing is because it begins at "Wall Street", AND includes specific regulatory legislation: https://financialtransparency.org/lawmakers-take-first-step-revealing-anonymous-companies-us/

Right, so that's not foreign policy at all, it's domestic financial regulation

More or less. The point is that Foreign Policy needs to be seen in a broader context. Which, btw, is one of the main points Bernie Sanders made as well.

yeah and SV and I did too, thanks for reading, jackass

ILX needs a new fp

Chad was added to 2scoops' "travel ban" (over a paperwork filing deadline, supposedly).
Chad responded by withdrawing its anti-terrorism military support in Niger.
Four soldiers died in Niger when they might not have if they had regional support.

Will Congress investigate Secretary of State Rexxon Tillerson as often, and for as long, as they investigated Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (after they underfunded embassy and foreign consulate security)?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/23/exxonmobil-nigeria-oil-fields-deal-investigation

http://tass.com/defense/959862

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rep-wilson-john-kelly-apologize-lying-article-1.3580850

#MRGA

New report from the neocons at Hudson institute on how the US should institute financial reforms to fight global kleptocracy. Dodgy allies aside, I continue to think this should be a central plank in any kind of comprehensive leftwing foreign policy. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/UnitedStatesofAnonymity.pdf

I disagree with Tombot frequently but he's absolutely right that a new foreign policy needs to be ambitious, moral, have environmental / QoL / development issues at the heart of it and offer a vision of the US as a partner in improving lives. If it's not also deeply unpopular with the likes of the Hudson Institute it's probably not going to amount to much.

"Rexxon" kind of a dope name though tbf

also wherever I got coffee on 8/31, I need to hit that spot more often?

my gosh, who could ever have seen this coming?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-trump-protesters-try-to-break-into-us-embassy-in-beirut/

in "silver lining playbook" mode, I think Trump's revanchist, racist, isolationist nastiness provides an excellent opportunity for the Democrats and affiliates to put forward a new US FP along the lines of what ShariVari, Fred B and I were almost able to agree about up above.

and in his own profoundly stupid, clumsy, mean-spirited way, he's making some room for it in the entrenched FS and DoD leadership cohort just by dint of causing a lot of competent but conformist career civil servants to decide "actually, fuck this"

hope springs etc.

Good article on the origin of the word 'kleptocracy' and the political choices that made it possible.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/683633

that thing takes a long, circuitous and highly problematic garden path to get to its point. First of all it's ahistorical and silly to say the concept didn't exist until there was a word for it, and secondly, why would you even quote the claim that nobody got rich off of bribes under communism? It seems really jejune to argue the qualitative differences between good old timey corruption and the kids these days with their Panama Papers and their Cayman Islands holdings; just draw a graph with some numerical estimates and get to the important part!

All of that poor argumentation and flabby framing aside, yes, gotta do something about the global corruption and billions of dollars in dark money outflows starving democracies of oxygen. However, a microcosm of the problem set here can be seen in China's anti-corruption initiatives, imo: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/49/2/Symposium/49-2_Chow.pdf (skim it)

This is one of the worst written passages I've ever seen...

The Party is not interested in cases involving minor stakes, such as a small fine or cases of petty corruption. These cases are handled by the legal system with little Party supervision or input. The Party is simply not interested in minor cases of corruption. When the stakes are higher because an important government official is involved, or because an MNC has engaged in widespread corruption, the Party feels that it needs to have direct control over the outcome of the case. The Party believes that high-stakes cases could have an important impact on Chinese society. So, it believes that it must exercise direct control over the case to avoid an outcome that could cause social unrest. In any case the Party directly controls the case, and the outcome of the case and the decision-making process becomes non- transparent to the public. The Party leadership works in secrecy and no one really knows why decisions are made. In other words...

^ reads like rambling dictation that was never cleaned up.

Sure. It’s an academic paper from a law journal. What you got?

jumping off from the other thread, feel free to tell me why America's enemies shouldn't get to have nukes

Simon, the most likely cause of nuclear war always has been and always will be tragic mistake or systems malfunction, the more countries have nukes the more likely that becomes

that I can buy.

"more countries should have nuclear weapons" clearly the bold new foreign policy vision america has been waiting to hear from progressives

again it's not about more nukes (imo no one should have them), it's the balance of power being so much in the US' favor is Not A Good Thing (particularly right now)

that's essentially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's argument and i think the effect of Any New Country With Nukes on aggregate global risk is too significant to agree

Great example of 2 wrongs not making a right.

e.g. what's more dangerous to the world, Trump with Nukes or Multiple Paranoid Regimes With Nukes in Trumpworld, i think the latter

You might be right! I'm not sure. Not that it matters at all what I think

yeah WilliamC otm i think

my personal calculus is that i don't believe it's right for the US to possess nukes, so it seems logically consistent to me to conclude that it's not right for anybody else to have nukes (whether or not the US has nukes)

hoos otm too

The one trumpian gesture that might have been genius would have been to offer to openly sell nukes to NK.

Lol, this was probably the wrong thread for this discussion, because there's no chance in hell any American politician will run on 'perhaps we're just too powerful...' On the plus side, though, I think every other country on earth is coming to that conclusion in the Trump years, so some sort of rebalance of power is probably going to take place.

there's no chance in hell any American politician will run on 'perhaps we're just too powerful...'

imo a principled socialist would run on something not too far removed from that but I don't see any of those running lol

i feel sad that i live in a country for which a main point of pride is our aweso e ability to kill people

I can see pacifists and isolationists running, but I can't see anyone running on being against American power. There's some obvious questions related to that stance that I don't think anybody would want to answer.

yeah, like why you're running for president of the united states if you think the united states should be weaker

as a shameless monument to one's own ego?

it's not about campaigns. when world leaders have overseen decline, given up territory & so on, it's not been down to personal conviction or winning over the electorate with their exciting new vision of a weaker country

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a candidate could argue that a country with no realistic territorial threats might not need to have 22 times the military power of the next one down the list if it means reinvesting some of that money in healthcare, functional social services, etc, but i genuinely don't know whether it could ever really make much of a difference. Military spending is so divorced from foreign policy that a change in the latter wouldn't necessarily mean a revision of the former. You'd need a completely new industrial strategy to and to somehow cut the cord between special interests / lobbying and a huge proportion of US politicians.

If I sound dismissive in this thread it's meant to be to myself for guiding the discussion into the wrong frame. I mostly see this thread as coming up with ideas for reframing 'western interests' into something more beneficial towards anyone, something a left-wing Democrat could run on. Managing American decline and the move to a multipolar world is a fascinating subject, and I would love to hear Simon and ShariVari's thoughts on it, although 'more nukes' still sounds insane to me ;)

lol again 'more nukes' isn't reeeallly what I was after but I'm just gonna drop it lol

Sorry :)

In all honesty though, it's probably just a matter of time before at least Japan and probably South Korea as well has nukes, the way things are going, right?

Couldn't think of a better thread to stick this delightful video in

It's well, well worth watching all of this exchange between Laura Ingraham and former CIA director James Woolsey. Woolsey acknowledges that the US has meddled in other countries' elections in the past and is doing so now, and both he and Ingraham find this laudable and funny. pic.twitter.com/TR3X7VM7Np

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) February 17, 2018

What is your purpose in the political realm of ilx simon

not sure I understand the question, nor how anyone would respond to it

He is quite reasonably upset that the US constantly meddles in Canadian elections, I guess.

https://gabrielricard.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/199912_10150113777292587_629062586_6917880_8165279_n.jpg

He is quite reasonably upset that the US constantly meddles in Canadian elections, I guess.

Not entirely unheard of fwiw:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-john-f-kennedy-helped-diefenbaker-lose-an-election/article10844078/
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000200240002-5.pdf

lmao @ "hint of meddling"

Bashing american politics is a time-honoured canadian tradition

But this has “BLAME CANADA” written all over it so don’t you be singling us out eh

only superpowers do this of course and no other allied intelligence agencies or diplomatic apparati are ever involved

*googles "voice of america" indicted*

Oh look who brought criminal charges against a corrupt american propagandist - america did

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-government-official-indicted-public-corruption-charges-related-ongoing-abramoff

only superpowers do this of course and no other allied intelligence agencies or diplomatic apparati are ever involved

my bad, why'd I go and post something focused on american foreign policy in the american foreign policy thread

Tbc, I never claimed that Canada has never been involved with this sort of thing ourselves, just that it's not ludicrous to suggest that the US might have done it in Canada.

cf East Timor

'everybody does it' was useful in the confessional b4 i lapsed

Injecting a video of nihilist poseur Laura Ingraham and obsolete prototype R. James Woolsey into a discussion about american foreign policy is a signal of disrespect for both the subject at hand and everyone trying to discuss it in this thread. It is your bad.

"obsolete" implies he's meaningfully distinct from any of the directors that have followed, a claim I'd like to see some evidence for

I assume you will also need evidence for why people shouldn’t take noted commentator Laura Ingraham seriously?

she's not the one whose remarks concern me here lol

I‘d be almost eager to post a long piece about how the D/CIA and DNI job has changed since 1994, and how Woolsey was an especially crappy example, but you could and would wave all of it away with “It’s still the CIA, the place that drones kids” so I’ll leave you to your own research.

'everybody does it' was useful in the confessional b4 i lapsed

Plea bargaining before penance

but he put it in my bum father i'm still a virgin

Every 10 minutes, a child under the age of five dies of preventable causes in Yemen. What few Americans know, however, is that the U.S. military is making the crisis worse by helping one side in the conflict bomb innocent civilians. pic.twitter.com/AJ73tExMjw

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 28, 2018

Yes. More tweeting. That's the policy America needs.

He's tweeting because he and a couple other senators advanced a resolution on the matter, Fred.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/28/yemen-saudi-arabia-war-us-support-senator-push-to-end

Fred why are you a foreign agent sowing divisiveness among the left

Serious question, Simon: What part of that resolution do you think is relevant to this thread?

america's support of saudi arabia is part of its foreign policy

did you watch the video in the original tweet or not? it makes it pretty clear that it's about the US' material support of the Saudi military. how is that not relevant to a foreign policy thread?!

That's it? The US should stop giving material support to the Saudi military. Then what? That won't even hardly impact the war in Yemen.

This thread is meant for pondering what a serious leftist foreign policy should look like. That resolution is pointless posturing, and is what we need to get past.

Bomb Yemen more obv

yes. more posting on this thread. that's the policy america needs.

i know when i want a "serious leftist foreign policy" i consult the dude who thinks the CIA wasn't involved in the iran coup

Fred, if you think it's a silly gesture, cool! What I don't see is other working Senators questioning whether or not the Senate is doing its mandated job to assess and rule on the US' involvement in planes of conflict, and perhaps in the process encouraging some dialogue on a set of subjects getting virtually zero discussion in mainstream media. And if all that is really the most he can do, perhaps those limits are worth discussing too. There are plenty of ways to extrapolate from these efforts in way that is germane to this thread. I didn't post that because I thought it *was* in itself a bold new FP vision or whatever

Chris Murphy has been trying raise the issue of Dems problems with foreign policy in a productive way for a while now. Glad to see him co-sponsoring this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/518820/

Fred, more fundamentally, the resolution is about declaring US involvement in Yemen unconstitutional because it has not been approved by Congress - which principle extends to US involvement in other conflicts that have also not been approved by Congress. Who gets to declare war is a fundamental aspect of US foreign policy. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around your position anyway: are you saying that US involvement in Yemen's civil war is trivial and largely symbolic? If so, couldn't a serious foreign policy stance also include getting out of trivial and symbolic levels of participation in foreign conflicts?

Again, is that seriously it? What difference does it make? Not a single life will be saved because of it.

The left needs to figure out what to do, and not just shout about what not to do.

Says the guy who just calls everyone else out for being wrong and/or irrelevant.

he doesn't even go here!!!

How do you decide what to do without identifying what not to do?

The US should stop giving material support to the Saudi military. Then what? That won't even hardly impact the war in Yemen.

this is just wrong tho is really the problem here. KSA is losing in syria and yemen and having trouble protecting their border. if the US could withdraw support (financial and logistical!) saudis would be forced to make some hard decisions even if the US told them to do what they want. there would be real world consequences. nb they might not be good consequences for the US (like if saudis radicalize out of US orbit and escalate) but it would be a real intervention in current fp affairs no question.

KSA is so tenuous if US withdrew support it wouldn't be like Obama holding back a missile package from Israel during the Gaza War. US is providing literal logistical + informational support to Saudis. it would be a major blow to their war effort (and maybe a threat to their rule).

mordy what did we say to you

busted

Mordy, you're wrong on several counts. The resolution isn't about withdrawing support from Saudi Arabia fully (which, coincidentally, I would agree with), it's just about Yemen. And just because the Saudis are losing in Yemen doesn't mean they would be impacted by a lack of US aid there. So the US wouldn't help logistically with finding bombing targets, but the problem is that the KSA is bombing hospitals and marketplaces and genocidically starving the country anyway.

The left needs to figure out what to do, and not just shout about what not to do.

I think I might be OK with the US 'doing' less in terms of foreign policy, actually.

in answer to thread q, drfarls:

https://thediplomat.com/2018/03/the-one-important-ingredient-for-regional-hegemony-that-chinas-still-missing/

Looking ahead, it is hard to see the United States falling behind many countries other than China and, perhaps, India; the EU already exceeds U.S. GDP, but its future as a foreign policy making institution remains in some doubt. And yet the UK, the EU, Japan, China, and others have played a significant, if not leading, role in the institutionalization of the liberal international order over the past six decades. This suggests that even if China, India, and the EU surpass the U.S. as engines of the global economy, the U.S. will retain significant influence over the structure of international society.

The question then becomes what to do with that influence. One part of the answer lays in institutionalization. Tightening the constraints imposed by multilateral institutions has long been a strategy for managing relative decline; it locks in particular arrangements negotiated from a position of strength. But deeper institutionalization seems to be a bad bet given the rising, transnational populist wave, and in any case every institution that can be made is one that can be broken.

A second part involves recognition of and full accounting with the growing power of China. The United States will not long be able to dictate terms at China’s 12-mile limit, regardless of the number of FONOPs it sails or the lethality of its stealth fighters. This hardly means that Washington needs to concede every element of China’s foreign policy program, but it does suggest that the U.S. needs to consider a posture of strategic modesty. This sounds easy, but the U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to thinking about an American role not built upon a foundation of hegemony.

Either way, the United States needs to rethink how it approaches international order; for the first time since the 19th century, it will soon face a situation in which it cannot assume even a “first among equals” position in determining the nature of the international order. This need not be a disaster, but it does require careful strategic thought as to how to bring means and ends together.

step 1 is obviously "get rid of almost all the experienced staff at the State Department and don't replace any of them"

(that was sarcasm, to be crystal clear)

if 2scoops opens north korea to american business then re-election is his to lose (if he doesn't get indicted that is)

what'll u do if that happens

depends how south korean pals feel

Another report from the Hudson Institute: https://www.hudson.org/research/14244-countering-russian-kleptocracy

It's quite maddening that everything in the report is meant to combat 'Russian kleptocrats', but all the ideas should fit quite well into a leftist anti-oligarchic/kleptocratic foreign policy.

It seriously seems as if 'Russian kleptocracy' has been ctrl+f'ed into parts of the report, lol. Fun reading. And join the fight for a "National Counter-Russian Kleptocracy Strategy" or NCRKS. #NCRKS.

on US-Cuba relations and the need for a "climate Marshall Plan" (I've only skimmed this and the links as yet)

https://fellowtravelersblog.com/2018/04/17/remove-the-screws-and-build-anew/

On the bipartisan hawk consensus

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/25/17277530/liberals-neocons-hawks-intervention-international-law-syria-strikes-illegal

and as gas continues to get more expensive (and guess who profits?) it's curious that QIA is taking charge of that mysterious 19% of carter page's rosneft that was dealt during the transition of power between the obama and trump administrations

https://www.archyworldys.com/qatar-investment-authority-to-acquire-19-stake-in-rosneft/

and knowing is half the battle

http://www.newsweek.com/us-military-dispatched-protect-middle-east-embassies-after-trumps-jerusalem-925458

the Trump-Schumer foreign policy

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/

my pal who knows the deal:

http://inthesetimes.com/features/left_progressive_foreign_policy_platform_russia_china_middle_east.html

eagerly anticipating tombot's rude evisceration of this

As someone from a country that has in fact been invaded by Russia for a short while: Please don't withdraw from NATO. At least listen a bit to Europeans before you think it would be progressive and solidaric.

Some good ideas, a lot of ideas so naive I can't believe the author thinks they will work. I absolutely would support an arms embargo along the line described in the article, but then it says something like this:

Cutting the United States’ multi-billion dollar arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Turkey and other U.S. allies involved in the Syrian wars would also lend legitimacy to U.S. efforts within those diplomatic processes to press Russia to stop providing arms to the Assad regime.

And... come on now.

Even though 'legitimacy' is desirable in both the moral sphere and political sphere, the two spheres have only a very casual, and somewhat accidental, connection.

Is the objection to the proposal or the stated rationale

(or both)

non-sarcastic q: when did russia invade denmark?

Suggesting that Russia would feel any particular pressure to stop arms sales to Assad, if the USA stopped sales to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Turkey, is sort of ludicrous. Putin would bless us for pissing off our erstwhile allies, weakening their ability to interfere in Syria, and he'd continue to strengthen Assad.

I'll ask Phyllis about this point and report back.

not immediately obvious to me how this is necessarily a bad thing ~

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/trump-makes-it-easier-for-the-u-s-to-launch-cyber-attacks.html

lol

qualmsley you know Trump commands the military too, right

a ha!

it's fucking retarded

god forbid we have any "interagency" deliberative process to prevent accidentally breaking the fucking internet because some O-7 thinks it would be cool to mess with somebody's power grid

non-sarcastic q: when did russia invade denmark?

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), 17. august 2018 00:10 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm#Soviet_occupation_(1945–1946)

Is the objection to the proposal or the stated rationale

― wayne trotsky (Simon H.), 17. august 2018 00:06 (nine hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The rationale. Instituting a weapons embargo on former allies would be a good idea, and it's refreshing to see someone call for it, instead of just saying 'US out of Yemen, and then it's okay'. But it's a major strategic realignment, and progressives would need to analyze what the fallout would be, and what the next step should be. Because if the countries then just buy Russian weapons, then what has been achieved? It hasn't saved a single live in Syria or Yemen.

i don't think the US should withdraw from NATO but tbh an island being bombed by the soviets at a time when your country was occupied by the nazis is not terribly relevant to the issue

That's wrong on so many levels. To begin with, the bombings happened after the nazis surrendered, and... Oh, why am I wasting time on this, thanks for explaining to me why my history is irrelevant.

it's fucking retarded

― El Tomboto, Thursday, August 16, 2018 11:48 PM (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cmon man, use better words

OK it’s very stupid

(still ableist if we're being real)

It’s poorly thought out

Bornholm island in 1945 = not relevant here

on the US and Syria

Our focus on U.S. obligations to address civilian costs is motivated by deep concern about the suffering in Syria and its destabilizing effects across the region. But our policy suggestions about refugee assistance or reconstruction aid are not driven by a conception of Syrians as simple victims. Rather we highlight these U.S. responsibilities because our view is that the United States is partly culpable for the catastrophic events and so owes a palpable debt to Syria. Again, one of the great problems with military intervention today is the degree to which external powers generally—and not simply the United States—enjoy absolute impunity for their actions. One could certainly make similar policy claims about Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Israel with respect to their actions in Syria. Writing from the United States, we underscore the necessity of U.S. assistance because it is a clear way to make amends for the costs of U.S. policy.

At the same time, we want to know how best to ensure that Syrians actually control their own political future. There is no obvious path, given the complexity of the conflict, the number of domestic and external interveners, and the sheer violence. But among the variety of available choices, the best way to preserve some degree of local control is to create the political space for the various groups on the ground to negotiate a transition through an inclusive diplomatic process. This would require an initial move by the United States and all the external interveners to cease hostilities on all sides, thus creating the conditions for meaningful discussion.

We agree, however, that even this may fail—and failure is certainly more likely than in 2012 when Assad’s position was far weaker. But we believe it remains the only viable path toward both peace and local political control. Some critics will say that we have a naïve and utopian faith in diplomacy. We see instead an assessment of what remains the most morally and politically acceptable choice among a number of difficult options.

https://bostonreview.net/war-security/asli-u-bali-aziz-rana-us-debt-syria

the United States is partly culpable for the catastrophic events and so owes a palpable debt to Syria.

See: Hungarian Revolution, 1956. Similar situation. US encouraged Hungarians to revolt, then did nothing when the Soviet tanks rolled in.

we believe it remains the only viable path toward both peace and local political control.

Author is correct, except to say it "may" fail; it would fail, absolutely guaranteed. We have zero leverage with Assad. His internal opponents are either Islamists or abysmally weak. Getting Israel involved would be a disaster. The Kurds don't care about Assad. We're even on the outs with Turkey right now. Our offering to broker a negotiation would be contemptuously rebuffed or else just ignored. Even talking/writing about such a plan is beyond grasping at straws.

Anybody read this?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-09-04/toward-neo-progressive-foreign-policy

Can't read it. But the beginning seems quite good.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/11/left-national-security-foreign-policy-donald-trump-219744

Joint U.S.-Russian raids to kill top terrorists. Teamwork between an American government agency and a sanctioned Russian fund. Moscow pouring money into the Midwest.

These are just a few of the ideas the head of a Russian sovereign wealth fund touched on during his meeting with former Blackwater head Erik Prince in the Seychelles, just weeks before President Donald Trump’s inauguration

https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealed-what-erik-prince-and-moscows-money-man-discussed-in-that-infamous-seychelles-meeting

new FP must of course be built around climate change

g'luck

it should definitely have a strong pillar around that, specifically on multilateral agreements to reduce carbon emissions, yes

That's putting it mildly

I don't think that's quite the FP vision we had in mind qualms :)

concerned about CC-refugee policy, if such a thing can remain stable in the likely hell to come