Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Yes, Bernie Sanders has a foreign policy vision. Here are its three central ideas.
By Charli Carpenter
(snip)
On closer inspection, Sanders’s foreign policy views are clear, even though they defy conventional categories. In his debate with Clinton in New York, for example, Sanders articulated an alternative approach to climate change, the Middle East and multilateral alliances. He then traveled to Vatican City, where he gave a speech about global economic inequality. Before the Democratic presidential debate this month, his campaign responded to Clinton’s attack with its own letter of support signed by 20 foreign policy experts praising his foreign policy views.
(snip)
1. Interdependence between national security at home and security for those beyond our borders.
(snip)
Sanders’s remarks on Israel and Saudi Arabia similarly signal both a commitment to holding U.S. allies to international law and a different view of long-term U.S. interests in resolving conflicts. Whether it’s accurate or not, many people in Muslim-majority countries think that the United States has unfairly sided with Israel and ignored genuine Palestinian grievances. The resulting Muslim anger and anti-Americanism help groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State recruit members. Sanders thinks we can improve U.S. security and long-term interests if we change this perception by helping Palestinians and Israelis. And a majority of Americans agree with him.
(snip)
2. Global and local politics, and economic and political power, are deeply connected.
Sanders has made it clear that to project U.S. power abroad, the country must strengthen the moral foundations of that power with policies at home. This is precisely the approach to democracy promotion that realists prefer. Unlike realists, though, Sanders thinks beyond the state to emphasize cross-cutting threats to both domestic and global democratic institutions. He understands that soft power at home is threatened by militarism, income inequality and fear. He plans to demilitarize domestic law enforcement and global drug policy and to attend to the cross-border drivers and effects of corruption. Both positions point to his conviction that the national and the global are linked and that the key threats to America are transnational in nature.
(snip)
3. Examine the evidence when assessing threats.
When assessing national security threats, Sanders’s priority is evaluating data and evidence. That’s visible in his network of signatories and endorsers, which includes independent foreign policy experts, including numerous scholars, rather than Beltway insiders. Sanders is talking to the kinds of people whom President George W. Bush ignored when his administration invaded Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks despite the absence of credible evidence that the nation was a threat to our own. For instance, in an election cycle when many Americans believe — quite incorrectly — that terrorism is the No. 1 threat to the nation, Sanders is not afraid to instead talk frankly about climate change as the most fundamental national security threat of our age. The Pentagon agrees.
(snip)
No matter who takes office, Sanders is making room for a different kind of foreign policy agenda and vision of what it means to pursue American interests abroad.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/27/yes-bernie-sanders-has-a-foreign-policy-vision-here-are-its-three-central-ideas/
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Sanders has an intelligent and moral foreign policy that, imo, is vital for these times. This planet cannot survive the current policies and actions that ignore the most vulnerable while using the most fanatical to accomplish goals that have proven disastrous for so many. It's cruel, brutal and heartbreaking.
Peace to you.
this study was only of Africa.
Armed conflict within nations has had disastrous humanitarian consequences throughout much of the world. Here we undertake the first comprehensive examination of the potential impact of global climate change on armed conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. We find strong historical linkages between civil war and temperature in Africa, with warmer years leading to significant increases in the likelihood of war. When combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response to temperature suggests a roughly 54% increase in armed conflict incidence by 2030, or an additional 393,000 battle deaths if future wars are as deadly as recent wars. Our results suggest an urgent need to reform African governments' and foreign aid donors' policies to deal with rising temperatures.
More than two-thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa (“Africa” hereinafter) have experienced civil conflict since 1960 (1), resulting in millions of deaths and monumental human suffering. Understanding the causes and consequences of this conflict has been a major focus of social science research, with recent empirical work highlighting the role of economic fluctuations in shaping conflict risk (2). Combined with accumulating evidence on the potentially disruptive effects of climate change on human enterprise, such as through possible declines in global food production (3) and significant sea level rise (4), such findings have encouraged claims that climate change will worsen instability in already volatile regions (5–7).
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20670.full
Furthermore, I have no doubt that the massive burning of carbon during war accelerates anthropological climate change, take a look at two spikes which occurred during World War I 1914-1918 and World War II 1939-1945.
The world was rapidly becoming more industrialized after WWI so temperatures kept climbing regardless, World War II; much greater in scope burned up so much carbon that temperatures had to drop after it ended, but of course resumed climbing in the early 1950s and hasn't stopped since.
