美國外交政策的一場革命
作者：伯尼·桑德斯； 外交部 2024 年 3 月 18 日
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/revolution-american-foreign-policy-bernie-sanders
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/op-eds/a-revolution-in-american-foreign-policy/#:~:text=
辦公地點
華盛頓特區, 美國參議院
332 德克森大廈，華盛頓特區 20510
電話：202-224-5141 傳真：202-228-0776
伯靈頓
電話：802-862-0697 傳真：802-860-6370
用團結、外交和人權取代貪婪、軍國主義和虛偽
華盛頓政治的一個可悲事實是，美國和世界麵臨的一些最重要的問題很少得到認真的辯論。 在外交政策領域最能體現這一點。 幾十年來，在外交事務上一直存在“兩黨共識”。 可悲的是，這種共識幾乎總是錯誤的。 無論是越南、阿富汗和伊拉克的戰爭，還是世界各地民主政府的推翻，還是貿易方麵的災難性舉措，例如加入北美自由貿易協定和與中國建立永久正常貿易關係，其結果都是 經常損害美國在世界上的地位，破壞該國所宣稱的價值觀，並對美國工人階級造成災難性的影響。
這種模式一直延續到今天。 在花費數十億美元支持以色列軍隊之後，美國實際上是世界上唯一一個捍衛總理本傑明·內塔尼亞胡的右翼極端主義政府的國家，該政府正在對巴勒斯坦人民發動全麵戰爭和破壞運動，導致 加沙地帶數萬人死亡，其中包括數千名兒童，數十萬人挨餓。 與此同時，在圍繞中國構成的威脅散布恐懼以及軍事工業綜合體的持續發展中，我們很容易看出兩個主要政黨領導人的言論和決策往往不是以尊重民主或人權為指導，而是以尊重民主或人權為指導。 軍國主義、群體思維以及企業利益的貪婪和權力。 結果，美國不僅與發展中國家的較貧窮國家越來越孤立，而且與工業化世界的許多長期盟友也越來越孤立。
鑒於這些失敗，早就該從根本上重新調整美國的外交政策了。 首先要承認二戰後兩黨共識的失敗，並製定以人權、多邊主義和全球團結為中心的新願景。
可恥的記錄
追溯到冷戰時期，兩大黨的政客就利用恐懼和徹頭徹尾的謊言將美國卷入災難性且無法獲勝的對外軍事衝突中。 約翰遜總統和尼克鬆總統根據所謂的多米諾骨牌理論派遣了近三百萬美國人前往越南，在越南內戰中支持反共獨裁者，即如果一個國家陷入共產主義，周邊國家也會淪陷。 這個理論是錯誤的，戰爭慘敗。 多達 300 萬越南人被殺，58,000 名美軍被殺。
對尼克鬆和他的國務卿亨利·基辛格來說，越南的毀滅還不夠。 他們通過大規模轟炸將戰爭擴大到柬埔寨，造成數十萬人死亡，並助長了獨裁者波爾布特的崛起，後者隨後的種族滅絕導致多達 200 萬柬埔寨人死亡。 最終，美國盡管傷亡慘重，花費巨資，卻輸掉了一場本來不應該打的戰爭。 在此過程中，該國在國內外的信譽嚴重受損。
在這個時代，華盛頓在世界其他地區的記錄也好不到哪兒去。 美國政府以反共、反蘇的名義，支持伊朗、危地馬拉、剛果民主共和國、多米尼加共和國、巴西、智利等國的軍事政變。 這些幹預措施往往是為了支持專製政權，這些政權殘酷鎮壓本國人民，加劇腐敗、暴力和貧困。 華盛頓今天仍在應對此類幹預的後果，麵臨許多這些國家的深深懷疑和敵意，這使美國的外交政策變得複雜並損害了美國的利益。
一代人之後，2001 年 9/11 恐怖襲擊之後，華盛頓重複了許多同樣的錯誤。 喬治·W·布什總統向“全球反恐戰爭”以及阿富汗和伊拉克的災難性戰爭投入了近200萬美軍和超過8萬億美元的資金。 伊拉克戰爭就像越南戰爭一樣，是建立在徹頭徹尾的謊言之上的。 布什臭名昭著地警告說：“我們迫不及待地等待最終的證據——確鑿的證據可能會以蘑菇雲的形式出現。” 但沒有蘑菇雲，也沒有確鑿的證據，
因為伊拉克獨裁者薩達姆侯賽因沒有任何大規模殺傷性武器。 這場戰爭遭到許多美國盟友的反對，而布什政府在戰爭前的單邊、單幹做法嚴重損害了美國的信譽，並侵蝕了世界各地對華盛頓的信任。 盡管如此，國會參眾兩院均以絕對多數投票批準了 2003 年的入侵行動。
伊拉克戰爭並非偶然。 美國以全球反恐戰爭為名，實施酷刑、非法拘禁和“非常規引渡”，在世界各地抓捕犯罪嫌疑人，長期關押在古巴關塔那摩灣監獄和中情局“黑點” 世界各地。 美國政府實施了《愛國者法案》，導致國內外進行大規模監視。 阿富汗二十年的戰鬥造成數千名美軍死傷，並造成數十萬阿富汗平民傷亡。 如今，盡管經曆了這些苦難和支出，塔利班仍重新掌權。
虛偽的代價
我希望我可以說，華盛頓的外交政策機構從冷戰和全球反恐戰爭的失敗中汲取了教訓。 但是，除了一些值得注意的例外，事實並非如此。 盡管承諾奉行“美國優先”的外交政策，唐納德·特朗普總統卻在世界各地增加了無限製的無人機戰爭，向中東和阿富汗派遣了更多軍隊，加劇了與中國和朝鮮的緊張關係，並差點與美國陷入一場災難性的戰爭。 伊朗。 他向世界上一些最危險的暴君——從阿拉伯聯合酋長國到沙特阿拉伯——提供了大量武器。 盡管特朗普的自我交易和腐敗行為是新出現的，但其根源在於美國幾十年來的政策，即優先考慮短期、單邊利益，而不是建立基於國際法的世界秩序的長期努力。
特朗普的軍國主義根本就不是什麽新鮮事。 僅在過去十年，美國就參與了在阿富汗、喀麥隆、埃及、伊拉克、肯尼亞、黎巴嫩、利比亞、馬裏、毛裏塔尼亞、莫桑比克、尼日爾、尼日利亞、巴基斯坦、索馬裏、敘利亞、突尼斯和也門的軍事行動 。 隨著華盛頓與北京的緊張關係加劇，美國軍方在 80 個國家擁有約 750 個軍事基地，並正在增加其海外存在。 與此同時，在內塔尼亞胡領導的以色列消滅加沙期間，美國正在向他提供數十億美元的軍事資金。
美國對華政策是外交政策群體思維失敗的另一個例證，這種群體思維將美中關係描繪成一場零和鬥爭。 對於華盛頓的許多人來說，中國是新的外交政策怪物——一種生存威脅，五角大樓的預算越來越高。 中國的記錄中有很多值得批評的地方：盜竊技術、壓製工人權利和新聞、大規模擴張煤電、鎮壓西藏和香港、對台灣的威脅行為以及對台灣的殘暴政策。 維吾爾族人民。 但如果世界上兩個最大的碳排放國中美之間沒有合作，就無法解決氣候變化的生存威脅。 如果沒有美中合作，也沒有希望認真應對下一次大流行。 華盛頓可以製定互惠互利的貿易協定，而不是與中國發動貿易戰，使兩國工人受益，而不僅僅是跨國公司。
美國實際上是世界上唯一一個捍衛內塔尼亞胡右翼極端主義政府的國家。
美國可以而且應該追究中國侵犯人權的責任。 但華盛頓對人權的關注是相當有選擇性的。 沙特阿拉伯是一個絕對君主製國家，由一個價值超過萬億美元的家族控製。 那裏甚至連民主的假象都沒有。 公民無權提出異議或選舉領導人。 婦女被視為二等公民。 同性戀權利幾乎不存在。
沙特阿拉伯的移民人口經常被迫淪為現代奴隸，最近有報道稱沙特軍隊大規模殺害了數百名埃塞俄比亞移民。 賈邁勒·卡舒吉是該國少數著名的持不同政見者之一，他在一次襲擊中被沙特特工謀殺，他將沙特大使館碎片留在手提箱中。美國情報機構斷定這次襲擊是由沙特事實上的統治者穆罕默德·本·薩勒曼王儲下令進行的。 阿拉伯。 然而盡管如此，華盛頓仍繼續向沙特阿拉伯提供武器和支持，就像它向埃及、印度、以色列、巴基斯坦和阿聯酋——所有這些習慣於踐踏人權的國家——提供武器和支持一樣。
事實證明，適得其反的不僅僅是美國的軍事冒險主義和對暴君的虛偽支持。 華盛頓近幾十年來簽署的國際貿易協定也是如此。
年複一年，當普通美國人被告知中國和越南的共產黨是多麽危險和可怕，以及美國必須不惜一切代價擊敗他們之後，美國企業界卻有了不同的看法。 總部位於美國的主要跨國公司開始喜歡與這些獨裁國家進行“自由貿易”的想法，並接受了在國外雇用貧困工人的機會，而其工資隻是他們向美國人支付的工資的一小部分。 因此，在兩黨的支持以及企業界和主流媒體的鼓吹下，華盛頓與中國和越南簽訂了自由貿易協定。
結果是災難性的。 在這些協議簽署後的大約二十年裏，美國有超過 40,000 家工廠關閉，約 200 萬工人失業，美國工薪階層經曆了工資停滯——盡管企業賺取了數十億美元，投資者也獲得了豐厚的回報。 除了在國內造成的損害之外，這些協議還很少包含保護工人或環境的標準，從而在海外造成了災難性影響。 美國工薪階層對這些貿易政策的不滿推動了特朗普最初的崛起，並在今天繼續讓他受益。
人們重於利潤
現代美國外交政策並不總是短視和破壞性的。 第二次世界大戰結束後，盡管這是曆史上最血腥的戰爭，華盛頓還是選擇吸取第一次世界大戰後懲罰性協議的教訓。 美國沒有羞辱戰敗的敵人德國和日本（這兩個國家的國家已成為廢墟），而是領導了一項耗資數十億美元的大規模經濟複蘇計劃，並幫助極權社會轉變為繁榮的民主國家。 華盛頓帶頭創立了聯合國並實施了《日內瓦公約》，以防止第二次世界大戰的恐怖再次發生，並確保所有國家都遵守相同的人權標準。 20 世紀 60 年代，約翰·F·肯尼迪總統成立了和平隊，以支持世界各地的教育、公共衛生和創業精神，建立人際關係並推進當地發展項目。 本世紀，布什啟動了總統艾滋病緊急救援計劃（PEPFAR）和總統瘧疾倡議，前者已挽救了超過 2500 萬人的生命，主要是在撒哈拉以南非洲地區，後者已預防了超過 15 億例瘧疾病例。
如果外交政策的目標是幫助創建一個和平與繁榮的世界，那麽外交政策製定者就需要從根本上重新思考其假設。 在無休止的戰爭和國防合同上花費數萬億美元並不能解決氣候變化的生存威脅或未來流行病的可能性。 它不會養活饑餓的兒童、減少仇恨、教育文盲或治愈疾病。 它無助於建立一個共同的全球共同體，也無助於減少戰爭的可能性。 在人類曆史的這一關鍵時刻，美國必須領導一場基於人類團結和奮鬥人民需求的新的全球運動。 這場運動必須有勇氣對抗國際寡頭集團的貪婪，其中數千名億萬富翁行使著巨大的經濟和政治權力。
經濟政策就是外交政策。 隻要富有的公司和億萬富翁仍然控製著我們的經濟和政治體係，外交政策決策就會以他們的物質利益為指導，而不是世界上絕大多數人口的利益。 這就是為什麽美國必須解決史無前例的收入和財富不平等帶來的道德和經濟憤怒，即地球上最富有的 1% 的人擁有的財富比底層 99% 的人還要多——這種不平等使得一些人擁有數十套住房， 私人飛機，甚至整個島嶼，而數百萬兒童卻挨餓或死於容易預防的疾病。 美國人必須領導國際社會消除避稅天堂，這些避稅天堂使億萬富翁和大公司能夠隱藏數萬億財富並避免繳納應繳的稅款。 這包括製裁充當避稅國的國家，並利用美國的重要經濟影響力切斷美國金融體係的準入。 據稅務司法網絡稱，目前估計有 21 萬億至 32 萬億美元的金融資產存放在離岸避稅天堂。 這些財富對社會沒有任何好處。 它不征稅，甚至不花——它隻是確保富人變得更富。
許多國防承包商將烏克蘭戰爭主要視為中飽私囊的一種方式。
華盛頓應該製定公平貿易協定，使所有國家的工人和窮人受益，而不僅僅是華爾街投資者。 這包括製定強有力的、具有約束力的勞工和環境條款以及明確的執行機製，以及消除投資者的壓力。
使外包工作變得容易的保護。 這些協議的談判必須聽取工人、美國人民和美國國會的意見，而不僅僅是來自目前主導貿易談判進程的大型跨國公司的遊說者。
美國還必須削減多餘的軍費開支，並要求其他國家也這樣做。 在麵臨巨大的環境、經濟和公共衛生挑戰的情況下，世界主要國家不能允許大型國防承包商在向世界提供用於相互毀滅的武器時賺取破紀錄的利潤。 即使沒有追加支出，美國今年也計劃向軍事投入約9000億美元，其中近一半將流向少數已經利潤豐厚的國防承包商。
和大多數美國人一樣，我相信，阻止俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾·普京對烏克蘭的非法入侵符合美國和國際社會的切身利益。 但許多國防承包商將戰爭主要視為中飽私囊的一種方式。 自 1991 年以來，RTX 公司（前身為雷神公司）已將其毒刺導彈的價格提高了七倍。如今，美國更換每枚運往烏克蘭的毒刺導彈要花費 40 萬美元——這一價格上漲令人震驚，根本無法用通貨膨脹、成本增加、 或質量的進步。 這種貪婪不僅讓美國納稅人付出了代價，也讓美國納稅人付出了代價。 這讓烏克蘭人付出了生命的代價。 當承包商抬高利潤時，到達前線的烏克蘭人手中的武器就會減少。 國會必須通過更仔細地審查合同、收回超額付款以及對意外利潤征稅來遏製這種戰爭暴利行為。
與此同時，當國際機構的行動不符合其短期政治利益時，華盛頓應該停止破壞國際機構。 世界各國辯論和討論分歧遠比投擲炸彈或卷入武裝衝突要好得多。 美國必須通過繳納會費、直接參與聯合國改革以及支持人權理事會等聯合國機構來支持聯合國。 美國最終也應該加入國際刑事法院，而不是在國際刑事法院作出華盛頓認為不方便的判決時對其進行攻擊。 喬·拜登總統重新加入世界衛生組織是正確的選擇。 現在，美國必須向世界衛生組織投資，加強其快速應對流行病的能力，並與其合作談判一項國際流行病條約，優先考慮世界各地窮人和勞動人民的生命，而不是大型製藥公司的利潤。
現在就團結一致
外交政策的這一轉變的好處將遠遠超過成本。 美國對人權更加堅定的支持將使壞人更有可能受到正義的審判，並且從一開始就不太可能侵犯人權。 增加對經濟發展和民間社會的投資將使數百萬人擺脫貧困並加強民主機構。 美國對公平國際勞工標準的支持將提高數百萬美國工人和世界各地數十億人的工資。 讓富人納稅並打擊離岸資本將釋放大量金融資源，這些資源可用於滿足全球需求並幫助恢複人們對民主製度的信心。
最重要的是，作為世界上最古老、最強大的民主國家，美國必須認識到，我們作為一個國家的最大力量不是來自我們的財富或我們的軍事力量，而是來自我們的自由和民主價值觀。 從氣候變化到全球流行病，我們這個時代最大的挑戰需要合作、團結和集體行動，而不是軍國主義。
上一頁 上一頁 我們的退休製度對於勞動人民來說是一場災難。 我們可以修複它
在 Facebook 上關注我
A Revolution in American Foreign Policy
By: Bernie Sanders; Foreign Affairs March 18, 2024
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/revolution-american-foreign-policy-bernie-sanders
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/op-eds/a-revolution-in-american-foreign-policy/#:~:text=
Office Locations
Washington D.C.，
U.S. Senate
332 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: 202-224-5141 Fax: 202-228-0776
Burlington
Phone: 802-862-0697 Fax: 802-860-6370
Replacing Greed, Militarism, and Hypocrisy With Solidarity, Diplomacy, and Human Rights
A sad fact about the politics of Washington is that some of the most important issues facing the United States and the world are rarely debated in a serious manner. Nowhere is that more true than in the area of foreign policy. For many decades, there has been a “bipartisan consensus” on foreign affairs. Tragically, that consensus has almost always been wrong. Whether it has been the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the overthrow of democratic governments throughout the world, or disastrous moves on trade, such as entering the North American Free Trade Agreement and establishing permanent normal trade relations with China, the results have often damaged the United States’ standing in the world, undermined the country’s professed values, and been disastrous for the American working class.
This pattern continues today. After spending billions of dollars to support the Israeli military, the United States, virtually alone in the world, is defending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing extremist government, which is waging a campaign of total war and destruction against the Palestinian people, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands—including thousands of children—and the starvation of hundreds of thousands more in the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, in fear-mongering around the threat posed by China and in the continued growth of the military industrial complex, it’s easy to see that the rhetoric and decisions of leaders in both major parties are frequently guided not by respect for democracy or human rights but militarism, groupthink, and the greed and power of corporate interests. As a result, the United States is increasingly isolated not just from poorer countries in the developing world but from many of its long-standing allies in the industrialized world, as well.
Given these failures, it is long past time to fundamentally reorient American foreign policy. Doing so starts with acknowledging the failures of the post–World War II bipartisan consensus and charting a new vision that centers human rights, multilateralism, and global solidarity.
A SHAMEFUL TRACK RECORD
Dating back to the Cold War, politicians in both major parties have used fear and outright lies to entangle the United States in disastrous and unwinnable foreign military conflicts. Presidents Johnson and Nixon sent nearly three million Americans to Vietnam to prop up an anticommunist dictator in a Vietnamese civil war under the so-called domino theory—the idea that if one country fell to communism the surrounding countries would fall as well. The theory was wrong, and the war was an abject failure. Up to three million Vietnamese were killed, as were 58,000 American troops.
The destruction of Vietnam was not quite enough for Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They expanded the war into Cambodia with an immense bombing campaign that killed hundreds of thousands more people and fueled the rise of the dictator Pol Pot, whose subsequent genocide killed up to two million Cambodians. In the end, despite suffering enormous casualties and spending huge amounts of money, the United States lost a war that never should have been fought. In the process, the country severely damaged its credibility abroad and at home.
Washington’s record in the rest of the world was not much better during this era. In the name of combating communism and the Soviet Union, the U.S. government supported military coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, and other countries. These interventions were often in support of authoritarian regimes that brutally repressed their own people and exacerbated corruption, violence, and poverty. Washington is still dealing with the fallout from such meddling today, confronting deep suspicion and hostility in many of these countries, which complicates U.S. foreign policy and undermines American interests.
A generation later, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Washington repeated many of these same mistakes. President George W. Bush committed nearly two million U.S. troops and over $8 trillion to a “global war on terror” and catastrophic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq war, much like Vietnam, was built on an outright lie. “We cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” Bush infamously warned. But there was no mushroom cloud and there was no smoking gun, because the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. The war was opposed by many U.S. allies, and the Bush administration’s unilateral, go-it-alone approach in the run-up to the war severely undermined American credibility and eroded trust in Washington around the world. Despite this, supermajorities in both chambers of Congress voted to authorize the 2003 invasion.
The Iraq war was not an aberration. In the name of the global war on terror, the United States carried out torture, illegal detention, and “extraordinary renditions,” snatching suspects around the world and holding them for long periods at the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba and CIA “black sites” around the world. The U.S. government implemented the Patriot Act, which resulted in mass surveillance domestically and internationally. The two decades of fighting in Afghanistan left thousands of U.S. troops dead or wounded and caused many hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties. Today, despite all that suffering and expenditure, the Taliban is back in power.
THE WAGES OF HYPOCRISY
I wish I could say that the foreign policy establishment in Washington learned its lesson after the failures of the Cold War and the global war on terror. But, with a few notable exceptions, it has not. Despite his promise of an “America first” foreign policy, President Donald Trump increased unrestricted drone warfare around the world, committed more troops to the Middle East and Afghanistan, ramped up tensions with China and North Korea, and nearly got into a disastrous war with Iran. He showered some of the most dangerous tyrants in the world—from the United Arab Emirates to Saudi Arabia—with weapons. Although Trump’s brand of self-dealing and corruption was new, it had its roots in decades of U.S. policy that prioritized short-term, unilateral interests over long-term efforts to build a world order based on international law.
And Trump’s militarism wasn’t new at all. In the past decade alone, the United States has been involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Cameroon, Egypt, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen. The U.S. military maintains around 750 military bases in 80 countries and is increasing its presence abroad as Washington ramps up tensions with Beijing. Meanwhile, the United States is supplying Netanyahu’s Israel with billions of dollars in military funding while he annihilates Gaza.
U.S. policy on China is another illustration of failed foreign policy groupthink, which frames the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum struggle. For many in Washington, China is the new foreign policy bogeyman—an existential threat that justifies higher and higher Pentagon budgets. There is plenty to criticize in China’s record: its theft of technology, its suppression of workers’ rights and the press, its enormous expansion of coal power, its repression of Tibet and Hong Kong, its threatening behavior toward Taiwan, and its atrocious policies toward the Uyghur people. But there will be no solution to the existential threat of climate change without cooperation between China and the United States, the two largest carbon emitters in the world. There will also be no hope for seriously addressing the next pandemic without U.S.-Chinese cooperation. And instead of starting a trade war with China, Washington could create mutually beneficial trade agreements that benefit workers in both countries—not just multinational corporations.
The United States, virtually alone in the world, is defending Netanyahu’s right-wing extremist government.
The United States can and should hold China accountable for its human rights violations. But Washington’s concerns for human rights are rather selective. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy controlled by a family worth over a trillion dollars. There is not even the pretense of democracy there; citizens have no right to dissent or elect their leaders. Women are treated as second-class citizens. Gay rights are virtually nonexistent. The immigrant population in Saudi Arabia is often forced into modern-day slavery, and recently there have been reports of mass killings of hundreds of Ethiopian migrants by Saudi forces. One of the country’s few prominent dissidents, Jamal Khashoggi, left a Saudi embassy in pieces in a suitcase after he was murdered by Saudi operatives in an attack that U.S. intelligence agencies concluded was ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Yet despite all of that, Washington continues to provide Saudi Arabia with weapons and support, as it does with Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the UAE—all countries that habitually trample on human rights.
It is not just U.S. military adventurism and hypocritical backing of tyrants that have proved counterproductive. So, too, have the international trade agreements that Washington has entered in recent decades. After ordinary Americans were told, year after year, how dangerous and terrible the communists of China and Vietnam were, and how the United States had to defeat them no matter the cost, it turns out that corporate America had a different perspective. Major U.S.-based multinationals came to love the idea of “free trade” with these authoritarian countries and embraced the opportunity to hire impoverished workers abroad at a fraction of the wages they were paying Americans. Hence, with bipartisan support and cheerleading from the corporate world and mainstream media, Washington forged free trade agreements with China and Vietnam.
The results have been disastrous. In the roughly two decades that followed these agreements, more than 40,000 factories in the U.S. shut down, around two million workers lost their jobs, and working-class Americans experienced wage stagnation—even while corporations made billions and investors were richly rewarded. Beyond the damage done at home, these agreements also contained few standards to protect workers or the environment, leading to disastrous impacts overseas. Resentment of these trade policies among working-class Americans helped fuel Trump’s initial rise and continues to benefit him today.
PEOPLE OVER PROFITS
Modern American foreign policy has not always been short-sighted and destructive. In the wake of World War II, despite the bloodiest war in history, Washington chose to learn the lessons of the punitive post–World War I agreements. Instead of humiliating defeated wartime enemies Germany and Japan, whose countries lay in ruin, the United States led a massive multibillion-dollar economic recovery program and helped convert totalitarian societies into prosperous democracies. Washington spearheaded the founding of the United Nations and the implementation of the Geneva Conventions to prevent the horrors of World War II from ever happening again and to ensure that all countries are held to the same standards on human rights. In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy launched the Peace Corps to support education, public health, and entrepreneurship around the world, building human connections and advancing local development projects. In this century, Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, which has saved over 25 million lives, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, and the President’s Malaria Initiative, which has prevented more than 1.5 billion cases of malaria.
If the goal of foreign policy is to help create a peaceful and prosperous world, the foreign policy establishment needs to fundamentally rethink its assumptions. Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars and defense contracts is not going to address the existential threat of climate change or the likelihood of future pandemics. It is not going to feed hungry children, reduce hatred, educate the illiterate, or cure diseases. It is not going to help create a shared global community and diminish the likelihood of war. In this pivotal moment in human history, the United States must lead a new global movement based on human solidarity and the needs of struggling people. This movement must have the courage to take on the greed of the international oligarchy, in which a few thousand billionaires exercise enormous economic and political power.
Economic policy is foreign policy. As long as wealthy corporations and billionaires have a stranglehold on our economic and political systems, foreign policy decisions will be guided by their material interests, not those of the vast majority of the world’s population. That is why the United States must address the moral and economic outrage of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, in which the richest one percent of the planet owns more wealth than the bottom 99 percent—an inequality that allows some people to own dozens of homes, private airplanes, and even entire islands, while millions of children go hungry or die of easily prevented diseases. Americans must lead the international community in eliminating the tax havens that enable billionaires and large corporations to hide trillions in wealth and avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That includes sanctioning countries that serve as tax shelters and using the United States’ significant economic leverage to cut off access to the U.S. financial system. An estimated $21 trillion to $32 trillion in financial assets are sitting offshore in tax havens today, according to the Tax Justice Network. This wealth does nothing to benefit societies. It’s not taxed and it’s not even spent—it simply ensures that the rich get richer.
Many defense contractors see the war in Ukraine primarily as a way to line their own pockets.
Washington should develop fair trade agreements that benefit workers and the poor of all countries, not just Wall Street investors. This includes creating strong, binding labor and environmental provisions with clear enforcement mechanisms, as well as eliminating investor protections that make it easy to outsource jobs. These agreements must be negotiated with input from workers, the American people, and the U.S. Congress—rather than just lobbyists from large multinational corporations, who currently dominate the trade negotiation process.
The United States must also cut excess military spending and demand that other countries do the same. In the midst of enormous environmental, economic, and public health challenges, the major countries of this world cannot allow huge defense contractors to make record-breaking profits as they provide the world with weapons used to destroy one another. Even without supplemental spending, the United States plans to devote around $900 billion to the military this year, almost half of which will go to a small number of defense contractors that are already highly profitable.
Like a majority of Americans, I believe it is in the vital interest of the United States and the international community to fight off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. But many defense contractors see the war primarily as a way to line their own pockets. The RTX Corporation, formerly Raytheon, has increased prices for its Stinger missiles sevenfold since 1991. Today, it costs the United States $400,000 to replace each Stinger sent to Ukraine—an outrageous price increase that cannot even remotely be explained by inflation, increased costs, or advances in quality. Such greed doesn’t just cost American taxpayers; it costs Ukrainian lives. When contractors pad their profits, fewer weapons reach Ukrainians on the frontlines. Congress must rein in this kind of war profiteering by more closely examining contracts, taking back payments that turn out to be excessive, and creating a tax on windfall profits.
Meanwhile, Washington should stop undermining international institutions when their actions don’t align with its short-term political interests. It is far better for the countries of the world to debate and discuss their differences than to drop bombs or engage in armed conflict. The United States must support the UN by paying its dues, engaging directly on UN reform, and supporting UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The United States should also finally join the International Criminal Court instead of attacking it when it delivers verdicts that Washington sees as inconvenient. President Joe Biden made the right choice in rejoining the World Health Organization. Now the United States must invest in the WHO, strengthen its ability to respond quickly to pandemics, and work with it to negotiate an international pandemic treaty that prioritizes the lives of poor and working people around the world—not Big Pharma’s profits.
SOLIDARITY NOW
The benefits of making this shift in foreign policy would far outweigh the costs. More consistent U.S. support for human rights would make it more likely that bad actors face justice—and less likely that they commit human rights abuses in the first place. Increased investments in economic development and civil society would lift millions out of poverty and strengthen democratic institutions. U.S. support for fair international labor standards would raise wages for millions of American workers and billions of people around the world. Making the rich pay their taxes and cracking down on offshore capital would unlock substantial financial resources that could be put to work addressing global needs and helping restore people’s faith that democracies can deliver.
Most of all, as the world’s oldest and most powerful democracy, the United States must recognize that our greatest strength as a nation comes not from our wealth or our military might but from our values of freedom and democracy. The biggest challenges of our times, from climate change to global pandemics, will require cooperation, solidarity, and collective action, not militarism.
