Bernie Sanders' foreign policy: ending inequality and authoritarianism



[ad_1]

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the Democratic Party's presidential nominees for 2020, has a coherent foreign policy thesis: income inequality and authoritarianism are intrinsically linked.

Of course, he is unhappy with the two major problems, so how do you fight them? Create a global democratic movement that opposes authoritarian leaders from Russia to Saudi Arabia to improve the lives of billions of people around the world.

It is a theme that Sanders, who, according to some, directs the foreign policy thinking of the Democratic field, has struck over and over again.

In a speech at Westminster College in September 2017, Sanders said that the United States must "take into account the incredible inequality of income and wealth that exists in the world and in our country." This "recognizes" that our safety and well-being are tied to the well-being of others around the world, "he said.

A little over a year later, at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, Sanders reiterated his speech by stating, "We need an international movement that is mobilized behind a vision of shared prosperity, security and dignity for all.

In an article published Saturday by the New York magazine in which Sanders exposed many of the same arguments, one of his foreign policy advisers said: "He shares these views on the importance of reducing inequalities in foreign policy ".

Obviously, Sanders is not only trying to explain how he will manage foreign affairs as president, but also how he defines a progressive foreign policy in general. "The United States must seek partnerships not only between governments but also between peoples," he told Westminster College.

There is no doubt that his broad vision is radical. "This is a break with the traditional foreign policy statements that recognize that the problems with the global political and economic order date back to before Trump and are much more structural," said Paul Musgrave, US foreign policy expert at the US. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

But the questions Sanders must answer – especially if he wants to lead the Democratic group on world politics – are what it would look like in practice and how he does it all.

The promises and dangers of Sanders' vision of foreign policy

Sanders gave two main clues as to how he would realize his vision of the world from the oval office.

First, to reverse the rise of authoritarian leaders, Sanders wants the United States to move away from them.

In his article on New Yorker, the senator explained that the United States should not take sides in the ongoing geopolitical wrangling, like Saudi Arabia against Iran or the Israelis against the Palestinians. Instead, it would empower citizens – not those responsible – for regimes that support better governance, progressive economic policies, and a more inclusive society.

In this way, at least in theory, the United States can influence the outcome without favoring rogue leaders. "We will not spend billions of dollars and lose American lives because of your long-standing hostilities," he told the magazine.

The main concern of the experts that I have talked about is that this guidance can work for countries like Iran, which has a generally pro-American population and a government that could, at least in theory, be forced to change. But how would this approach help the people of an extremely authoritarian country like North Korea, where many citizens can not even access the Internet, dislodge Kim Jong Un?

Sanders' point of view could help the US get out of worrying entanglements abroad – which experts generally applaud – but it may not solve some of the world's most intractable problems.

Second, the honorable senator also wants to support foreign governments that are pushing back the multinationals who are not paying enough taxes and moving economic hardship on working families. At the same time, he would defend at home commercial policies favoring taxpayers in relation to businesses.

In a sense, the senator wants to export his message and populist economic policies far and wide. But he may find some resistance from voters if he tries to change American economic practices in this direction, confided me Alexandra Guisinger of Temple University, expert in US economics and public opinion. "This makes it a problem for us against them," she said, particularly as he applied a reduction in tariffs on agricultural products so that foreigners could sell more in the US market.

In addition, repressing endemic global capitalism – Sanders makes fun of it – would mainly mean targeting developed countries, many of which are US allies, she said.

Musgrave had the same concern. "Financial companies in London, Geneva and New York, including their intermediaries in countries like the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands, play an important role in preserving the wealth of international oligarchs," he told me. said. "President Sanders may be able to deal with New York's role in domestic politics – but how would he look to close the financial networks of other countries?"

The biggest problem, according to Musgrave, is that Sanders seems to think that authoritarianism and the oligarchy are at the root of most of the world's problems. "It sounds a bit like a 'theory of everything'," he said.

Sanders' challenge throughout elementary school will be to flesh out his overall vision and translate it into concrete policies. If he wins the nomination, he will face another foreign policy hurdle: Trump.

Sanders Trump's problem

During the 2016 presidential election, Sanders had the general impression that his economic message – rebuilding America instead of investing in wars – was very similar to that of President Donald Trump. Sanders may have this problem again this time.

Guisinger said that there were two main reasons.

First, like Trump, Sanders supports the reform of free trade agreements such as NAFTA – which has reduced trade barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico – to protect US industries. However, the senator does not appreciate Trump's current efforts to reorganize the deal.

"Go back to the NAFTA drawing board," Sanders said at a rally Saturday in Michigan. "Do not send this treaty to Congress if it does not include strong and fast enforcement mechanisms to increase workers' wages and prevent companies from outsourcing US jobs in Mexico." "

Second, the Democratic favorite and Trump are skeptical of international institutions. Sanders especially worries about the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a global body that contributes to the stability of the global economy.

When he was in the House of Representatives in 1998, Sanders had asked Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin about IMF loans to repressive governments. And in 2015 he criticized the IMF for imposing austerity measures on Greece, a prerequisite for granting economic aid in times of financial crisis.

"It is unacceptable that the International Monetary Fund and European decision makers have refused to work with the Greek government on a sensible plan to improve its economy and repay its debt," he said at the time. Huffington Post. "In this period of grotesquely inequitable wealth, the pensions of the Greeks should no longer be reduced to repay some of the world's largest banks and wealthiest financiers."

It is perhaps not surprising then that Sanders expressly linked his economic message to democratization. After all, Trump has been warm to the authoritarian leaders of Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea, while doing little to promote democracy in the world. Sanders, meanwhile, hopes that improving the economic well-being of others will help the growing democratic movements abroad to pick up speed.

This is a theme that can be expected to have Sanders – and other Democrats – approached many times during the campaign. The ultimate question then is whether Sanders can really chart a new course for US foreign policy during the campaign, whether he wins or not.

"It's a vision that the international economy would be subordinated to a vision of political relations and human rights that would distance itself from Clintonism as much as from Trumpism, but in a different direction," said Musgrave. .

[ad_2]

Source link