Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, laid out her foreign policy platform at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York City last Thursday. Promise of a lot more war and bullying of allies. Not a whole lot different from a centrist Republican position, as far as I can see. I am not going to go into details of the several theoretical frameworks I use in my analysis here, as that would require at least 30 pages and hundreds of footnotes. I merely compare Senator Sanders’ and Secretary Clinton’s foreign policy platforms from a bird’s eye perspective in terms of how they stack up against my own understanding of international security theoretical underpinnings. Given the central role security plays in our lives, it is an area of human striving that naturally calls for more than hard guns (military) and hard butter (economy). It calls for a deeper, philosophical foray into human nature, aspiration, potential, and failings. I will not do all that here. Bird’s eye.
Democratization – Not a Peaceful Process
While working on my undergraduate thesis I stumbled upon a remarkable paper by Mansfield and Snyder. (Democratization and War Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder Foreign Affairs Vol. 74, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1995), pp. 79-97 Published by: Council on Foreign Relations DOI: 10.2307/20047125 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20047125 Page Count: 19)
The gist of that paper was Snyder’s and Mansfield’s warning as to the eagerness of the United States and other established Western Democracies to spread democracy around the world, and the related underlying argument that democracies do not fight each other. Mansfield and Snyder contend that while it is true that established democracies do not fight each other, the ripening process of those democracies took two centuries and was far from peaceful. Yet, established Western Democracies have not headed Mansfield and Snyder’s advice, but have instead unleashed a number of multi-headed-snake-haired monsters around the world in the name of democratization. I say “in the name of” because the underlying cause can most certainly be traced to those Western states’ national security interests, which have always prioritized access to natural resources, primarily oil, natural gas, precious ores, diamonds etc. That said, the goal of democratization is unquestionably a worthy cause, however, the manner and the timing of its execution have not been optimal, to say the least. On a more sober note, thus far, the underlying motivation for democratizing others was usually at odds with the goals of genuine democratization, hence the resultant quagmires. When this hypocrisy is viewed in light of Snyder’s and Mansfield’s warning, it becomes obvious what we have done to the world, and that the chickens are indeed coming home to roost.
Post-Cold War International Structure and Hegemonic Stability – the Nature of the Leadership Role Required of the United States of America
The phrase “post-Cold War” sounds really archaic at this point, however it is not irrelevant. Basically, during the Cold War international relations were shaped by the structure of the international system, which was a MAD competition between two superpowers. For those who are not familiar with the acronym, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction, a term that most unfortunately came into being due to our Cold War nuclear weapons stockpiles. The MADness of the superpower competition became obvious to everyone during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which JFK and his advisory team handled rather well. (Imagine Trump or the Neoconservative cabal in the driver’s seat in a situation like that, or hawkish Secretary Clinton for that matter!!!)
In 1989 the world changed dramatically in that this dual structure of MAD ended, and was replaced by a transitional stage, rife with bone-dry tinderboxes. The Berlin Wall came crushing down. The Rumanian dictator and his wife were shot by a firing squad just in time for Christmas. Yugoslavia went up in flames. Rwanda experienced Armageddon. The United States of America took over as the only remaining superpower, so called hegemon, while the Soviet Union more or less withdrew to lick its wounds and build up its economy. Recently Russia has been reemerging as a stronger player on the scene and the Syrian conflict is its current playground we are all focusing on, while the situation in Ukraine unfolds without international scrutiny.
The central premises of hegemonic stability theory are the following: (1) the hegemon protects and upholds a plethora of international norms and regimes (regime as in a set of agreements, not as in rule of brutal dictator) for the benefit of all; (2) there are rising powers within the system and they will balance either with or against the hegemon. The international regimes and norms are agreed to by nations in order to promote stability and international security, as well as trade and all that other good stuff that we all want. The United Nations play the central role in that endeavor, while their most powerful member states set the tone. Notably, the Permanent Five member states of the Security Council have deep disagreements coupled with veto power, ensuring paralysis of non-action on most important situations, such as the Palestinian situation. Nonetheless, when an action is agreed to by the Security Council and executed with the support of other member states, such action gains what is called – legitimacy.
The United States have long been a beacon of hope in the world accustomed to brutal regimes, lack of personal freedom, or ability to aspire to something more than just surviving. Post WW2, the United States had tremendous moral capital, based on its crucial role in ending the war and in helping countries ravaged by the war to rebuild via the Marshall Plan. Over time, certain foreign policy decisions, as well as actions by multinational companies (MNCs), managed to weaken the moral standing of the United States of America, and the songs of praise quieted down. For example, the elephant in the room is most notably Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. While I do not deny Israel its right to exist in peace with its neighbors, it is the way the Israeli state – with vital US support – has been treating the Palestinian population, which has been directly feeding into the terrorist propaganda for decades. The Palestinians certainly think Israel and the United States are the biggest terrorist. One group uses suicide bombers, while the other uses the most powerful weapons arsenal imaginable. The Palestinian Israeli conflict needs to be dealt with rationally and without favoring Israel. The US must take a different approach, an approach that will help eliminate, or at least, soften the negative image toward it in the Middle East, to the extent that is at all possible at this stage.
Then came George W. Bush and his illegal war on Iraq, for which he had no support from the United Nations, hence no legitimacy. This war is directly responsible for creating ISIS by destabilizing the entire region to the point of anarchy we are seeing now. The United States’ moral leadership was further severely damaged by Bush’s actions (his Neoconservative cabinet headed by VP Cheney). Question is whether this moral standing can ever be repaired. There was a collective global sigh of relief when Barack Obama was elected president, following catastrophic eight years under Bush’s “leadership.” President Obama has certainly done an awful lot to repair our moral standing in the world, but he has also continued with air strikes, some of which resulted in “collateral damage” and many of which were carried out motivated by securing our “national interests” in the region, namely securing the flow of petroleum. I am certain that President Obama would have much preferred to have switched the country to 100% sustainable energy so as to make the repulsive Saudi regime less of a necessary “ally,” but given the unprecedented level of dangerously reckless and childish behavior by the GOP dominated Congress, that plan would have happened when Hell froze over. Thus, the GOP have all but ensured Hell would freeze over, i.e. climate change is advancing at exponential rates and our children and grandchildren are inheriting an increasingly uninhabitable planet. People around the globe are looking at us and shaking their heads. 47 Congressmen even went as far as to write a treasonous letter to the Iranian government, undermining President Obama’s nuclear weapons negotiations at a crucial junction in the process!!! Even the Iranians were shaking their heads and feeling sorry for our President. They were luckily wise enough to simply shake that letter off as another insane action by the Tea Party madmen in Congress.
Nonetheless, President Obama just struck a major weapons sale agreement with the Saudis last week. Allegedly that was part of the Iranian negotiations, a bitter pill Obama had to swallow, if one is to believe that explanation. I am angry. Imagine how angry the non-Wahhabi Arabs living in the region are. It is known that the Saudis financed Osama bin Laden. It is known to people who are willing to dig under the surface that the Saudis and the Qataris are funneling weapons and money to various terrorist networks who are doing a great job at destabilizing the region and the world. I disagree that religious fanaticism is the only reason for this, while it certainly plays a huge role. There is also calculated self-interest of the richest men in the world to continue peddling their petrochemicals, weapons, drugs and slaves. They are short-sighted maniacs with only profit in mind. Religiosity is nothing but an afterthought for those. Just like the hypocrites in our own Congress who are representing the interest of the Koch brothers and their ilk while parading the Bible. Those people are despicable, dangerous and not fit to govern the country.
With leadership like that we are losing face around the world. The US is no longer much of a beacon of light, especially with the most recent inhumane action by the GOP + 47 Democratic (in name only) Congressmen who passed a bill refusing to accept desperate refugees from Syria, who are running for their life from a situation which our government (Bush & Co.) is heavily responsible for creating by destabilizing Iraq.
Thus, the question of powers on the rise BALANCING with or against the hegemon is rather pertinent. If the US continues to behave like a spoiled brat and bully on the international scene, or if it continues being perceived as such, the other powers in the system who are on the rise will actually start thinking about balancing against the US. Hence the US has a military budget the size of everyone else combined. While guns are important, so is butter (the economy) and more recent scholarly findings say SOFT POWER plays a crucially important role. I do not know what the Trans-Pacific-Partnership agreement holds, but tend to believe the progressive media and Senator Sanders that the agreement is very dangerous to everything we all hold dear. All of us who are not in the top 1% and hiding profits in the Cayman Islands. Under Clinton TPP is likely to go into motion, even though she recently gave lip service/promise she would not pass it. With fewer protections for labor and the environment, the earth will only speed up on its breakneck coarse of destruction.
Sanders versus Clinton
Most pundits opine on Clinton’s vast experience in foreign policy being so overwhelming that it is just laughable an old socialist Jew from Brooklyn with only municipal and legislative experience would be a match. I beg to disagree.
Bernie, as his supporters call him, while not having served as Secretary of State, possesses moral fortitude unseen since the time of FDR. Based on the basic underpinnings I attempted to explain above, Bernie would actually be a much better Commander-in-Chief. For one, he honestly cares for the men and women serving in the military and would think very hard and long before sending them to war. Secondly, he is not beholden to the petrochemical interests driving our insane energy and foreign policies, and would refuse to do their bidding. He possesses intellectual curiosity and wisdom, and an actual heart with the capacity for genuine compassion. He has dealt with the House and the Senate long enough to understand the minute intricacies of what is at stake. He connects the dots rationally and pragmatically. With Bernie, we just might have a chance to change the course of our foreign policy away from business as usual (bomb, bomb, bomb) and use serious diplomacy, wisdom, and fire power only as the very last resort. Bernie speaks of building international coalitions in order to deal with the seemingly insurmountable problems in the Middle East and in dealing with terrorists.
Today H.A. Goodman wrote in Huffington Post The Only Way to Destroy ISIS Is With a Bernie Sanders Presidency
...Sanders understands how ISIS and other groups wage war. The primary goal of groups like ISIS is to lure America into asymmetric wars that mitigate our military advantages; submarines and nuclear weapons can't defeat IEDs or insurgents hiding in apartment buildings. The willingness of Bernie Sanders to move beyond the traditional American paradigm of continual war, in the hopes of ending continual terror, is why Sanders has the right formula to defeat ISIS.
Nowhere in Clinton’s hour-long speech does she even mention coalition building in a tone that implies an enlightened approach. Her platform sounds more like a manual for bullies. The alliances she picks are suspect, and leading to more war, more death, more suffering, more arms sales.
Furthermore, According to Goodman
...she conveniently failed to mention the consequences of her Iraq quote. ...Al Qaeda was ‘rebranded’ ISIS, and while Hillary Clinton’s supporters simply point out that she’s called her vote a ‘mistake’ (as if warped logic sufficiently justifies future decision in the Oval Office), it’s clear that our invasion of Iraq resulted in a great many unintended consequences.
Also, for the record, according to the SIPRI.org database of arms exports, the US is by far the largest exporter of weapons. With that in mind, business as usual is absolutely absurd. According to Goodman’s article, the Clinton Foundation received $10-25 million from Saudi Arabia, also the number two importer of US weapons. And all this even though Clinton had written in a memo that “More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/the-only-way-to-destroy-isis-is-with-a-bernie-sanders-presidency_b_8626570.html More firepower, more bombing, more war is not the answer. Bernie understands that. According to Goodman, he
demands that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries lead the fight against ISIS. It’s this road map that will defeat ISIS, not the lofty rhetoric of Clinton or diatribes from Trump. With Bernie Sanders as president, America won’t be lured into perpetual conflict by an enemy that wants us to fight endless counterinsurgency wars.
Bernie understands that our country could once again be truly great, strong domestically and respected internationally for actual LEADERSHIP. Secretary Clinton is NOT a leader. She is a flip flopping follower beholden to special interests and I do not trust her to lead this country and the world. More business as usual is what I expect from her, with minor cosmetic changes so as to appease the impoverished masses. No big directional change. Bernie is the new FDR we have been waiting for ever since Reagan ruined the country.