New idea for a Democratic defense/foreign policy

[Ken Burch]

SECURITY THROUGH JUSTICE is the working name I propose for it.

We would, in this doctrine, build global security by seeking the allegiance of rank-and-file people throughout the planet, rather than particular governments.

We would obtain this allegiance through a global policy of supporting all working people in their struggles for decent wages, working conditions, environmental standards and human rights.

We would support trade policies aimed at raising global living standards from the bottom up, rather than enriching elites.

And I think we could demonstrate that this approach would cost less than the "invade everybody" strategy that Bush is using.

these are the broad stroke ideas so far. Any comments or suggestions are welcome.

[davepc]

1. Mao and Lennin couldent of put it better!

[Ken Burch]

3. Basically, I'm trying to reverse the historic postwar Democratic mistake

of sending the troops out to fight for the rich.

This assumed that our only possible allies in the world were reactionary elites. We usually ended up losing bigtime after 1945 as a result.

This also meant that resources which could have been used to put
Democratic values into practice were squandered on endless battlefields.

And the resulting dispute ended up splitting our party and creating the Second Republican Ascendancy(1968-present).

[DaedelusNemo]

5. Agreed!

Our history is not one of fighting for democracy, or even for capitalism, it's one of fighting for special privileges for our corporations. The greatest crime a country can do in our eyes isn't tyranny or genocide, it's putting restrictions on our corporations.

It's no surprise world opinion has been steadily turning against us.

Again, it seems to boil down to people vs. corporations. Is this the true axis of modern politics?

[Ken Burch]

12. Although LENIN could have spelled it better.

Was your post an endorsement of or an attack on my idea?

And what are YOUR foreign policy ideas, pray tell?

[DrGonzoLives]

13. Yeah, let's just blast people to hell

or put their countries so far into debt that they can never get out. That solution just works so well :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

14. Actually, blasting people into hell and putting their countries

in debt is pretty much what we just did in Iraq.

(or was that your point?

[hellhathnofury]

19. Slow down partner...

and ask yourself whether there are people who would agree with this who aren't Communists.

[Ken Burch]

21. Actually, I think it would get us the support of the overwheming majority

of the planet's residents. And, since 1989, that majority damn sure ain't commies.

And what is your alternative? Stay with our traditional approach of always taking the side of the rich and the generals? Stay with "trade liberalization"(as if anybody who wasn't already rich has ever gained from taking even more wealth away from the workers and giving it to those who already have enough?)

[hellhathnofury]

23. Errr.....

I think you replied to the wrong comment.

[Ken Burch]

25. OK, which post were you talking about, then?

[Lenape85]

2. Withdraw from the WTO and NAFTA also

If we do that, then subsistence peoples will not have it so bad, and they would have no reason to hate us.

What Republicans and moderate Democrats believe in is a foreign policy that is like cutting a weed, it might seem like an effective solution, but it just grows back. What Dems should believe in is a foreign policy that involves yanking the weed out from the roots, so that people will not have a reason to hate us.

[DaedelusNemo]

4. Either that or reform - labor standards help everybody /nt

[Lenape85]

8. We create an even more complex situation with reform

Better to just pull the plug on NAFTA and the WTO

[Ken Burch]

16. There was also the unfortunate example of Al Gore's "side agreements"

on environmental and labor standards.

Anybody remember those agreements?

Case closed there.

[DaedelusNemo]

6. Security through Peace? Strength through Alliance?

"If people are better off being our friends, they will not want to be our enemies"

Improving labor standards, by the way, would slow down the flight of jobs from the US considerably - but it'd be a good thing for other people, too.

We should also be doing noticeable things to help, not just filtered through (paid to) the local government. Hamas, for example, scores major points with middle east populations by providing hospitals, schools, food. Surely we can be more benevolent than terrorists?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orlandodem]

9. Muscular Multilateralism

Can't take credit for the title but we were the party that created the League of Nations (repugs opposed). We are the party of the UN. I believe we are the party in power when NATO was created.

We need to suggest a new anti-terror alliance of the US, EU, India, Pakistan, Afganistan, Israel, and a variety of others.

We are the party of strong world wide alliances and we need a new visionary alliance that will share intel to fight terrorism.

Further, I suggest a plan that would pump hundreds of billions into the ME. I suggest a 21st century Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries of the region. We ought to literally rebuild like we did Europe after WWII.

[Ken Burch]

10. That's got possibilities. But the issue I've left out so far

that we need to address, is specifically what an alternative strength through justice approach would mean for Middle East policy.

Could we maybe do a Palestinian Marshall Plan of some kind?

[DaedelusNemo]

11. Another advantage to doing so - lower terrorist recruitment

Hamas and Hezbollah, etc. derive a lot of their goodwill in the mideast with their charity efforts. Palestinians look around and see, hey, these guys are the only ones who care enough to help us. We should be competing for that goodwill, at the very least - a kid that learns in a US-sponsored school has a very different education from one in a Hamas school.

[Ken Burch]

15. This new policy would also require a redifinition of U.S. interests

I would say that those interests should be

1)rising incomes in other countries to increase markets for U.S. exports and reduce need
for foreign aid and military expenditures.
2)socially just societies to increase global stability.
3)higher environmental standards to increase the sustainability of the planet.
4)population control to avoid overuse of global resources and the resulting instability
causeed by overconsumption.

[Ken Burch]

17. I've also realized that my original suggestion for a name won't work

"strength through justice" sounds, on further research, too much like the Nazi motto of "strength through joy."

How about "REAL STRENGTH" or "TRUE INFLUENCE"?

[hellhathnofury]

18. Alright, so here's my question.

How would this policy be applied to say our national relations with North Korea?

I think you'll find that's much more of an ideology than a policy. Policies tend to be more prescriptive than descriptive.

[Ken Burch]

20. Not sure overall, but here's a North Korea policy I'd call for

1)Give 'em the damn bilateral talks. If it gets them to ease up on the bomb-making, it's worth it.

2)Tie any agreement on distribution of food relief to that relief being distributed by NGO's rather than the North Korean gov't.

3)Offer to recognize North Korea in exchange for a real effort at glasnost. They're not going away and isolating them hasn't fazed them.

[Nantuckt22]

22. MUST READ

Zbigniew Brzyzinski, Jimmy Carter's brilliant National Security Advisor, published a book called The Choice. Any Democrat who has ever criticized Bush's foreign policy must read this book. Not only does it tear apart what Bush has done in a new way which nobody has done before, but his thoughs are well-analyzed and original. The principles laid out in this book should be the pillars of a comprehensive Democratic foreign policy.

[hellhathnofury]

24. Problems

1. The North Koreans have already shown that they will sign an agreement on arms and then totally ignore that commitment. They straight up violated the 1995 Framwork Agreement with little more than a flinch. What makes you think they would abide by another one? Bi-lateral talks would let them dictate the negotiation agenda.

2. The North Koreans would strongly object to any direct foreign involvement in North Korea. They aren't going to let thousands of foreigners just waltz into their country and run the show.

3. I don't think isolating them was about fasing them. The armistance is there because we had fought to a stalemate and really had no other choice other than to fight at the cost of more lives. This isn't late 1980's Russia here. Our little dictator here is more akin to a Breznhev than to a Gorbachev.

[Ken Burch]

26. Well, I'll admit I don't have the answer on North Korea yet

...But then again, none of the old Democratic hawks did, either.
Best they could manage was a stalemate.