So
now we know that Bernie Sanders’s ambition to renew US politics
does not stop at the water’s edge. Last week, when presenting his
foreign policy vision at Westminster College, Sanders did not limit
himself to the moral deficit of U.S. national security orthodoxy. He
squarely targeted core aspects of American foreign strategy. And
rightfully so. More than six months after the election, Sanders is by
far the most popular politician in America.
by
Ali Naraghi
During the election, voters were
repeatedly told that Sanders lacked a “serious” foreign policy
vision. However, the Vermont senator has an impressive record of
being on the right side of history. From the Vietnam War to the
invasion of Iraq, Sanders has opposed the Washington Consensus, which
seamlessly goes from one disaster to another.
In keeping with the theme of his
2016 campaign, Sanders connected the bloated military budget to
domestic poverty plaguing America. “Foreign policy is not just tied
into military affairs; it is directly connected to economics,”
Sanders said. “Foreign policy must take into account the outrageous
income and wealth inequality that exists globally and in our own
country.” He added, “they must be understood as part of the same
system and fought in the same way.”
This is, after all, a country that
has overwhelmingly passed a $700 billion defense bill; meanwhile, as
Sanders puts it, “they want to throw 32 million Americans off of
the health insurance they currently have because, supposedly, they
are worried about the budget deficit.”
Within his speech, Sanders also
drew attention to the double standards that have undermined U.S.
credibility around the world. He justified this by citing disastrous
regime change policies in Iraq, as well as CIA-backed coups against
Chilean leader Salvador Allende and Mohammed Mossadegh’s
democratically elected government in Iran. He reminded his audience
that the rise of “inequality, corruption, oligarchy, and
authoritarianism are inseparable,” and that “[we] cannot
convincingly promote democracy abroad if we do not live it vigorously
at home.”
Later, in an interview with The
Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan, Sanders doubled down on his past argument
that “Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories”
has been “contrary to fundamental American values,” slamming both
parties as “complicit” because of the unconditional support for
Israel and its treatment of Palestinians. For those who want peace,
these are important remarks that would help shift the “Overton
Window” on this static policy – much like what he has done
domestically on the healthcare front.
His responses to the War on Terror
and the subsequent U.S. blunders in the Middle East are no different:
“As an organizing framework, the Global War on Terror has been a
disaster for the American people and for American leadership.”
Sanders continued: “Orienting U.S. national security strategy
around terrorism essentially allowed a few thousand violent
extremists to dictate policy for the most powerful nation on earth.”
What is astounding about this statement is not that it diminishes the
prevailing War on Terror narrative, but that it represents a
fundamental distinction from the positions of both the Democratic and
Republican establishment.
In truth, Sanders’s ideas have
long reflected public opinion. Recent polls have consistently shown
that the majority of Americans oppose expanding military presence
overseas, and favour diplomacy over preputial wars abroad. In holding
these views, Sanders is in tune with the anti-intervention sentiment
that has grown alongside the anti-establishment wave sweeping the
West.
Sanders’ approach can open the
political space for a progressive coalition among both the
anti-interventionist left and the isolationist right. These are the
same economically disillusioned voters who crave a genuine
alternative and are ignored for doing so. Indeed, before morphing
into a full-fledged neocon, Trump himself harnessed those sentiments
to beat Hillary Clinton.
Bernie’s criticism of American
foreign policy draws attention to the international policy that fuels
massive inequality at home and spreads insecurity overseas. Reaching
back into the dark history of CIA coups during the Cold War, Sanders
points out that when the United States artificially interrupts the
organic political progression of other nations, it generally
backfires. His logic on the War on Terror fits into the same pattern:
it is expensive, isn’t working and it’s damaging U.S. interests
in the long run.
Just like his economic policies,
many of Sanders’s foreign policy stances will be smeared as
dangerous and appalling to the political class. But they are the ones
that increasingly reflect the views of the wider population.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment