Forging an Internationalist Green New Deal

By Taylor Hynes

#6 in a series of policy briefs laying out clear steps to re-think and re-orient US foreign policy.

Key Takeaway: Commit to financing global climate initiatives through the Green Climate Fund, prioritize labor and environmental standards in all trade agreements, and scale down and defund military operations

The incoming Biden administration is poised to be the most vocal cabinet on climate change the nation has seen yet, despite it strongly resembling Obama’s. However, Biden himself has sent mixed signals on his support of the Green New Deal – a House resolution that has become the shorthand for massive government action on climate justice. 

The GND has shifted the broader conversation from responding to disasters as apolitical forces to using this climate crisis as a starting point to build a just society. There have been valid critiques of the GND from both the left and right, but above all, GND-inspired legislation must be an internationalist endeavor if it is to have a meaningful impact for our global future.

Continue reading “Forging an Internationalist Green New Deal”

Climate Justice, not “Energy Security”

Fourth in a series of policy briefs laying out clear steps to re-think and re-orient US foreign policy.

By Sam Ratner

Key takeaway: Get “energy security” off the Democratic agenda and change the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources’ job description to focus on achieving climate justice.

“Energy security” has been a buzz-phrase of US foreign policy for decades. In the last Congress, House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Elliot Engel allowed a group of Republicans and centrist Democrats to add a provision to the 2019 State Department authorization bill requiring the president to appoint an Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. The position already exists — it is held currently by the ironically-named Francis Fannon, a former oil lobbyist — but Engel’s bill would have formalized the role for future administrations. In the text of the bill, the Assistant Secretary’s job description doubles as a summary of how the bill’s authors view the purpose of US energy policy: “protecting and advancing United States energy security interests.”

Continue reading “Climate Justice, not “Energy Security””

The Great American Oil Graft

By Zack Kopplin

On December 9, the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing to question Joel Rayburn, a State Department official, about America’s intervention in Syria’s civil war. Rayburn talked a good game about rebuilding the country, but President Trump has blown past bromides about humanitarian aid to emphasize that troops are deployed in Syria for one reason: to guard oil wells for exploitation.

Continue reading “The Great American Oil Graft”

Democratizing Defense: Toward a More Responsive and Transparent US Security Policy

By Katya Abazajian and Tyler McBrien

US foreign policy decisions are guarded by a precious few. Decision-makers work in secret in the name of national security. Congress, which is constitutionally mandated to reflect the will of the people in foreign policy, has increasingly ceded its powers to the executive branch. Think tanks and the media reinforce the perception that Americans don’t care about security policy issues, despite unanimous public sentiment on overarching themes of our involvement abroad. This has created a democracy deficit in US foreign policy.

Continue reading “Democratizing Defense: Toward a More Responsive and Transparent US Security Policy”

Restoring Confidence in International Trade

By Yong Kwon

Fourth in a series of policy briefs laying out clear steps to re-think and re-orient US foreign policy.

Key Takeaway: Build a durable political coalition around trade by promoting profit sharing in domestic industries; ending global tax avoidance through international cooperation; and rolling back austerity measures imposed on heavily indebted countries.

The period of growing international trade, punctuated by the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, coincided with the accelerated displacement of manufacturing jobs in the United States. Although U.S. export of goods and services grew during this period, many people began associating U.S. participation in trade agreements with rising economic insecurity at home. As a consequence, ratification of agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership became politically untenable.

Continue reading “Restoring Confidence in International Trade”

De-escalation on the Korean Peninsula

Third in a series of policy briefs laying out clear steps to re-think and re-orient US foreign policy.

By Catherine Killough

Takeaway: The US government should abandon its demand for the unilateral disarmament of North Korea, and instead pursue the formal conclusion of the Korean War. Halting the deployment of nuclear-capable assets, suspending military exercises, and adopting No First Use will further deescalate tensions.

The United States and North Korea are still at war, even if seven decades of ceasefire obfuscates this fact. Today, this long-delayed peace plays out in the nuclear crises that routinely aggravate US-North Korean relations, such as the 2017 “fire and fury” standoff. 

Continue reading “De-escalation on the Korean Peninsula”

Now You Do What They Told Ya

By Kate Kohn

The military in the time of coronavirus has put strip-mall recruiting centers on the back burner. With handshakes now the equivalent to launching plague corpses over the city walls, virtual recruiting is taking over the task of enlistment. But this recent shift does not send the Pentagon into uncharted territory. Rather, it vindicates the US Military’s decades-long dabbling in online games. 

Continue reading “Now You Do What They Told Ya”

Restoring Momentum Toward Nuclear Zero

Second in a series of policy briefs laying out clear steps to re-think and re-orient US foreign policy.

By John Carl Baker

Takeaway: Pass the No First Use Act, cancel the new ICBM, and begin negotiating with Russia toward deep reductions in both countries’ outsized arsenals.

The world faces a renewed nuclear arms race. All nine nuclear-armed states–China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US—are modernizing their arsenals and adding new capabilities. Nuclear superpowers the US and Russia control 91% of the world’s 13,000 nuclear warheads and together keep well over 3,000 deployed – more than enough to end human civilization.

The US nuclear posture needlessly inflames this volatile international situation. The president holds unilateral launch authority and the US still reserves the right to launch a nuclear first strike. The US possesses hundreds of ground-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) that are kept on alert in anticipation of a completely unrealistic surprise attack. These ICBMs drastically reduce presidential decision time (approximately ten minutes) and increase the chance of a mistaken launch. Close calls have happened in the past.

Continue reading “Restoring Momentum Toward Nuclear Zero”

“We Don’t Need a Smoking Gun”: U.S. Provocations and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan

By Gunar Olsen

During the Cold War, U.S. interventions in the Global South often transformed local issues into geopolitical pieces on the grand chessboard with grave humanitarian consequences for those in targeted states, whether Vietnam or El Salvador. The same remains true in the post-Cold War world, as Washington’s crusades into the Balkans, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have uprooted societies and made a new cold war more likely.

One string of U.S. interventions has outlived the passing of the Cold War like no other: Afghanistan. For critics of U.S. global supremacy, Jimmy Carter’s decision to initiate a CIA program of nonlethal aid to the mujahedin in July 1979 ranks among Washington’s most disastrous and consequential gambits in modern history. They argue that the CIA program provoked the Soviet invasion six months later, making the United States significantly responsible the humanitarian catastrophe that unfolded during the next nine years of war, the constant instability in Afghanistan for the past four decades, and the proliferation of Islamic extremism.

Continue reading ““We Don’t Need a Smoking Gun”: U.S. Provocations and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan”