By Yong Kwon

After decades of pushing back against free trade agreements that advanced corporate interests, labor advocates in the United States have developed a reflexive disdain for treaties that expand commercial ties with other countries. As a consequence, the left has shied away from criticizing the Trump administration’s imposition of trade barriers.

This is a mistake. Privileged classes throughout history have employed protectionism and trade liberalization interchangeably to safeguard their economic dominance. Labor must be similarly flexible to counter the malign influence of capital.

Continue reading “A Trade Policy for the Workers Begins from Within” →

By Daniel Remler

After seven years at the helm of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim announced in January that he would be resigning as president. Since the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were first established after World War II, the United States and Europe have had an informal agreement whereby an American would run the World Bank and a European would run the IMF. True to this pact, President Donald Trump announced the nomination of Treasury official David Malpass as the US nominee. As happened when President Obama nominated Kim in 2012, there were calls for the US to abandon its stranglehold on the World Bank’s top job.

Though Malpass managed to gain enough support from other stakeholders to become president, progressive policymakers can take the opportunity of this transition to make clear that ending the US monopoly on World Bank leadership and supporting leadership for the organization from the developing world must be a priority for the next progressive US president. This policy shift would not only recognize fundamental shifts in the global economy toward developing countries, but also begin to address the institution’s significant shortcomings and help advance progressive economic policy.

Continue reading “The United States Must Support a Non-American World Bank President” →

By Caleb Weaver

For many viewers, a photograph of Venezuelan protesters preparing to hand out flowers during the February confrontation on the Tienditas Bridge likely evoked the iconic photographs taken during the 1967 March on the Pentagon. For students of social movements, it also provided unmistakable confirmation of the scholarly literature and political playbook from which the Venezuelan opposition is drawing. The eternal return of the flower gesture speaks to the influence that Gene Sharp, Erica Chenoweth, and other political scientists studying civil resistance have gained in the human rights, democracy-promotion, and foreign policy fields. Drawing upon a seemingly bottomless reserve of case studies on Serbia’s Otpor movement, civil resistance literature emphasizes activist strategies and civil society organizations rather than armed struggle or class dynamics as the driver of political change.

Backed by an impressive dataset, Chenoweth and Maria Stephan find that nonviolent campaigns are more likely than violent ones to achieve independence, regime change, or an end to occupation. The core argument of their 2011 book Why Civil Resistance Works is that nonviolent resistance efforts present lower barriers to entry than do armed struggles and can therefore generate much higher levels of mass participation. This mass mobilization offers protestors a variety of levers with which to force capitulation. Civil resistance scholars argue that whatever benefits movements derive from violence tend to be outweighed by the repression and public disapproval that it invites. They push back, therefore, against studies such as This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed and We Will Shoot Back which argue the presence of an armed wing or violent flank can increase a movement’s chance of success

While leftists energized by the examples of the Russian Revolution, the Black Panther Party, or the Zapatista uprising may bristle at its rejection of ‘violent flanks,’ civil resistance scholarship often overlaps with leftist analysis. To give one example, Sharp, Chenoweth, and others correct the hagiographies that credit mass movements with appealing to their opponents’ conscience or forging moral consensus. Participation is valuable, they argue, for the coercive power that it lends protestors. This conclusion should resonate with leftist observers of the labor movement, who know from the tradition of dockworker militancy that a small group exercising control over a chokepoint in production has a clearer path to success than a universalist effort to convert class antagonists into friends.

Continue reading “No Universal Prescription for the Universal Condition” →

By David Sterman

Since he took office, President Donald Trump has overseen unprecedented escalations in America’s counterterrorism and drone wars in Yemen and Somalia while simultaneously ramping up secrecy around the drone strike program. In some ways the escalations are no surprise, as Trump campaigned in part on extreme violence as a counterterrorism strategy, including arguing for killing terrorists’ families – an act which would be a war crime. Some reports have suggested this attitude found expression within the policy process.

Yet careful tracking of the America’s counterterrorism wars by New America shows that the violent rhetoric is hardly a prerequisite for widespread use of drone strikes by presidents of either party. The Trump administration’s counterterrorism strategy has substantial commonalities with the Obama administration’s approach, and the Obama strategy took many of its cues from the Bush administration. Different administrations have talked about drones and airstrikes in different ways, but such strikes have become a key part of a bipartisan counterterrorism consensus. As a new crop of presidential candidates pledge progressive approaches to foreign policy problems, voters are owed answers about whether and how candidates will meaningfully change American counterterrorism policy.   

Continue reading “Can the Next President Dismantle an Inherited Drone War?” →

Last November, Nicholas Mulder sparked a debate about the place of sanctions in the toolbox for progressive foreign policy, writing in The Nation that progressives must “move beyond the dominant consensus on how to deal with foreign policy problems as framed by the establishment, in which there are only two flavors: the mild option of sanctions and the radical option of war, neither of which works particularly well.” The piece drew responses, notably from Neil Bhatiya on this blog and from Daniel Drezner in the Washington Post, both of whom made the case for sanctions as a flavor of policy worth preserving. The conversation continues here, with Mulder taking on the question of how we think about success in sanctions policy.

By Nicholas Mulder

If progressivism aims to create a better world, it should start by abandoning the tools of collective punishment. As I argued in The Nation, a whole suite of tools exist for directly going after specific individuals and companies who break or evade domestic and international laws. It is in this domain–by imposing sanctions on tax evaders, for example–that progressive foreign policy can regain some of the legitimacy that has been weakened by decades of excessive US interventionism and the Trump Administration’s antics.

Earlier this month Neil Bhatiya made a counter-case for economic sanctions as a tool of progressive foreign policy, arguing that “any measure that widens the distance between peace and war should be in the foreign policy toolbox.” If sanctions can effectively accomplish the same goals as military force, then they could be seen as a tool that forestalls war. Bhatiya and Drezner both argue that sanctions, if properly applied, can do just that: deter some state actions and compel others. Recent sanctions successes, they claim, justify keeping broad-based sanctions in the progressive foreign policy toolbox. The historical record, however, is not nearly that clear.

Continue reading “Correlation Does Not Equal Compellence: The Weak Evidence for Sanctions” →

By Tyler Bellstrom

When Bernie Sanders formally entered the 2020 Democratic presidential primary this week, he did so with the most fleshed-out vision of a left foreign policy articulated by a primary candidate in at least a generation. The race is already teeming with candidates who have responded to the success of Sanders running from the left in the 2016 primary and the triumph of a left-leaning representatives in the 2018 midterms by offering domestic policies aimed at economic inequality and the distorting power of capital. Yet capital doesn’t stop at the water’s edge, and much as old Beltway policy hands would like to argue that it does, politics doesn’t stop there either.

The primary will be a debate about the meaning of progressivism as much as anything else, and that debate can’t be limited to domestic issues. For a candidate to be able to call themself a progressive in the 2020 presidential campaign, their politics must extend beyond the confines of borders and coasts. Their progressive values should shape their foreign policy as much as their domestic policy, and the connection between the two should be a centerpiece of their campaign.

Here are progressive foreign policy priorities that 2020 candidates can use that work in concert with the domestic policy messages they’ve built their campaigns on.

Continue reading “Left Politics Should Never Stop at the Water’s Edge” →

By Michael Galant

Twenty-five years ago, a small band of mostly indigenous rural peasants declared uprising against the Mexican state on the very day that the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect. Five years later, over 40,000 protesters – union members, environmental activists, consumer advocates, and anarchists – filled the streets of Seattle, demonstrating against and even briefly shutting down the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Zapatista uprising and the Battle in Seattle were watershed moments in the emergence of a global network of resistance to neoliberal globalization known variously as the Global Justice Movement, the Alter-Globalization Movement, and, typically derisively, the Anti-Globalization Movement. The Alter-Globalization Movement (AGM) was (and though weaker now, still is)  a loose global network of progressive NGOs, unions, activists, and think tanks, united in opposition to neoliberal globalization and in the struggle for alternatives. As the American left works to articulate its foreign policy and strengthen its internationalist organizing, the anniversaries of these events should act as reminder and opportunity: to reflect on, learn from, and find inspiration in, the often-overlooked AGM.

Continue reading “Teamsters, Turtles, and Theorists: The Alter-Globalization Movement” →