RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Taking Back Foreign Policy: The Congressional Progressive Caucus

Print
Written by Judy Pasqualge   
Monday, 17 December 2018 05:30

Taking Back Foreign Policy: The Congressional Progressive Caucus

Judy Waters Pasqualge

Sometime in mid-2018 I downloaded a copy of The People’s Budget by the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). Hopefully, this document does not reflect the views on foreign policy of progressives in the incoming Democratic House. The policies covered under the heading “Sustainable Defense: Promoting Global Peace and Security” (and especially the subhead “Diplomacy and Development”) and under the actual budget’s category “Function: 150 International Affairs” are not progressive.

One could call them liberal (in the sense of the pre-President Clinton Democratic Party), or neoliberal (as supporting the US economic model, in domestic and international spheres, from Clinton on), or authoritarian (as not aimed at supporting the well-being of peoples and countries and advances in their situations), but let’s just call them conservative ‒ a tweaking of details of an agenda that really aims to maintain the status quo.

My comments here concern the caucus policy document and not the views of individual House representatives.

In brief, the document gives highest priority and many details to domestic policies in the fields of infrastructure, healthcare, fair tax system, immigration reform/border policy, the justice system and fair elections, education, the minimum wage and collective bargaining, housing, the environment, LGBT equality, small business, veterans, and social security.

It provides a real blueprint for a range of changes that could improve many people’s lives. At the same time, however, when these are compared to the measures regarding defence and foreign policy, it really seems that the policies suggested for the betterment of US people are discarded when it comes to peoples of other countries, or at the least there is no priority for the latter.

While it can be said that all countries, or the leading people or groups in them, do act in their own self-interest, few countries have the geographic global reach and coercive influence of the United States. US citizens have a special responsibility to prioritise dealing with US foreign policy and the consequences of it.

 

‘Sustainable’ Defence

The document admirably calls for reform of abuses in the Department of Defense. It comes out against the expansion of “endless and unauthorized wars,” calling for investment in “diplomacy instead of weapons” to “achieve a just and lasting peace” globally. Spending would be increased on diplomacy, governance, sustainable development and humanitarian assistance.

The document misses the point that the main aim of US foreign policy is to protect US financial interests, and that a key strategy in this is the waging of permanent war ‒ rather than allow a country to follow policies that do not prioritise US financial interests, the aim becomes intervention to destabilise, even destroy, a country.

First, it is well to start here with a reminder from Polisci 101: peoples are not governments (or leaders, or privileged or high-status groups). One can set foreign policy with regard to peoples, or to such groups ‒ the US does the latter. And so does the document of the CPC; this is seen in both the suggested budget increases, and especially in topics that are excluded altogether (see below).

Second, the main aim here is to shatter two myths:

‒ that foreign policy (including economic policy) is too complex, too difficult to understand, or would take too long to do so; and

‒ that US people are not interested, and so need someone to decided such policy for them.

Changing policy regarding relations with other countries is not easy, as old policy continues even as changes are made ‒ but nothing will really change if information is not given and priorities are not spelled out in detail.

 

The Highest Priority

Any listing of foreign policy issues must start with a look at what is now called ‘climate change.’ That this term is still in use is an indication of the failure of even many progressives to really try to educate. Perhaps a better term might be ‘earth crisis, including climate change.’

There is a quite established framework to study this crisis, which describes nine planetary boundaries (one of which is increased levels of CO2) and their ‘tipping points.’ The others are: 1. disruption of biogeochemical systems (nitrogen going out of the atmosphere, and phosphorus going into the oceans); 2. ocean acidification; 3. ozone layer depletion; 4. chemical pollution (all kinds of toxic substances); 5. fresh water (lessening and contamination of); 6. atmospheric aerosols; 7. land use (conversion to cropland); and 8. biodiversity loss (including species extinction). (One can easily find information on this model and one of its authors, Johan Rockstrom.)

Here one needs to ask a few questions: Why are so few commentators in the media, political parties and academia not talking about this? Why are they, in essence, acting as (closed) gatekeepers to a fuller understanding of this crisis?

One could see such an omission as being an example of the defence mechanism called denial: a refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening.

Or, this could be seen as illustrating the cognitive bias called normalcy bias: the refusal to plan for, or react to, a disaster that has never happened before.

One thing is for sure: knowledge of such a framework could serve to better understand the impact of the economic development policies promoted in US foreign policy.

 

Foreign Policy for Profit

The economic development aspect of US foreign policy follows one model, and it is the same one that is:

-- applied domestically in the US, is spreading to Europe, etc., and that follows the trajectory of developments especially from the 19th century on;

-- advocated by such global institutions as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, Asian Development Bank, etc., etc.

-- adhered to by officials, legislators, elite groups, governments around the world; and

-- dealt with so extensively by the CPC with regard to the changes needed in US domestic policy in the areas listed above.

In fact, a better word than ‘model’ is template, as ‘model’ may imply that it is “taken or proposed as worthy of imitation,” and a template is a “gauge, pattern, or mold (as a thin plate or board) used as a guide to the form of a piece being made” (or an overlay). (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1963)

Again, the idea that this area is too complex to understand, with too many countries, is a myth. There may be denial going on, meaning a lot of fear, but citizens are responsible to some extent for US policy, and it may be that ignorance of this is really demonstrable of arrogance: an overestimation of knowledge or ability.

The template can be termed ‘supply side’ (Reagan) or neoliberal, but it has the same false rationale: raising the measured economic activity/total assets of the system will lead to more income/assets for all ‒ they will trickle down. Thus, the supposed creators (suppliers) of wealth (big business and wealthy individuals) should receive special treatment (subsidies, such as tax cuts, low interest rates) in order to benefit all. At the same time, and to foster this, government should makes cuts on the demand side: social services, education, healthcare ‒ and, ideally, privatise these so that wealth creators can provide even greater benefits to us all.

Internationally, ‘free trade’ means keeping a country’s ‘borders’ open to investment, goods and services from outside ‒ even bypassing local laws; allowing foreigners to buy land; and offering incentives to them to invest, even ones not offered to local businesses, and the ability to repatriate profits. (It is clear that this aspect of US foreign policy is now matched by a particularly odious policy toward foreigners.)

For many countries in the world now, one aspect of the template (experienced by western countries decades and even centuries ago) aims to get small farmers off the land, so that huge areas can be factory farmed, with all the necessary inputs of GMO foods, pesticides, etc. One big difference here, however, is that many people in the world today do not have the options that westerners had long ago: migration to more land within your own country, or migration abroad to places like the US and Australia.

In addition, even some mainstream economists, such as Thomas Piketty, have shown that this template is not able to fulfill the promises that serve as its very basis of justification: the provision of full employment, and an increase in income/wealth equality (given proper education and skill sets). Indeed, the opposite is happening almost everywhere; it is obvious that this template does not work. (John Bellamy Foster and Michael D. Yates, “Piketty and the Crisis of Neoclassical Economics,” Monthly Review, November 2014, 1-2)

One need only realise that now, in many countries and as an occurrence only in the last few decades, the standard of who is really wealthy is now measured by international standards ‒ in the hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, not in local currency ‒ and that such people often do not pay much in taxes (are subsidised, as in the US).

 

Another Big Myth

It is in this light that one can view the great myth that the mankind or the world is ‘progressing,’ that poverty is less and the middle class only growing, i.e., that the template is working. Indicators such as GDP and per capita income are used to show this.

It used to be that poverty in poorer countries was measured as having an income of US$ 1 per day or less; and then it became $2 ‒ no doubt, very soon, this will be raised to $3. Acceptance of such a standard would be akin to saying that the US minimum wage, at $7.25, provides an adequate livelihood, when actually at least twice as much is needed to even have some traction.

The indicator of per capita income masks the actual distribution of income and the holding of assets. A handful of dollar billionaires, individuals and companies, skew the the statistics ‒ and hide the reality of people who make, say, $500 per year ($2/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks).

People who believe that the poor around the world are doing better, or that the ‘middle class’ there resembles that in the US, might try going abroad and living on a very small income; or, perhaps, try living in the US, supporting a family, on $7.25 an hour.

This justification myth is certainly needed, while at the same time foreign-originated directives call for: the privatisation of water, electricity, healthcare, education, profitable state corporations and public transport; special treatment to foreigners, as seen above; and continuation for whole countries of what has been termed ‘debt bondage.’

Certainly, a progressive agenda that calls for measures for student debt relief in the US (as stated by the CPC) cannot omit the debt situation of whole countries.

One can at least consider the opinions of well-established writers who provide critiques that refute this myth. For example, Samir Amin described the template as furthering pauperisation. The modernisation of agriculture threatens the survival of one-half of the world’s people. More than ½ of the global urban population lives in a precarious position ‒ some 1.5 billion people. (The Liberal Virus – Permanent War and the Americanization of the World, 2004)

 

A More Effective, Cost-Efficient Defence?

One big flaw in the CPC document regarding foreign policy is the belief in the altruism of the State Department and its programmes, as if the department does not exist to promote the above economic template in general and US interests in particular. No doubt, individuals may be well-intentioned, but the department serves merely as the public mask on economic policy.

It is misguided to (in one short paragraph and several lines of a budget) call for the blanket support of the US Institute for Peace, USAID and the Peace Corps. Further, while often providing positive relief, the practice of humanitarian assistance comes with other agendas, sometimes even as an excuse to introduce US military personnel, and is applied to some situations and not others ‒ based on self-interest, not need.

Programmes that deal with ‘governance’ and election assistance often mask US interference, including the channelling of funds and expertise to friendly groups (including neoliberal ones) ‒ aims and practices that people in the US would not want another country to do in the US.

Caucus support for the current fashion of microfinance needs attention, as the record in many places finds loan recipients unable to repay and losing all that they have.

Again, there are many analyses out there on the real functioning of the above, and one can only wonder at the very conservative stance of the CPC on this. The use in the document of such words as ‘stabilise,’ ‘sustainable’ and ‘humanitarian,’ and the utter lack of detail make the suggestions actually meaningless, except, perhaps, as a cover to promote a conservative foreign policy.

 

Why the Omissions?

Perhaps unintentionally, the CPC document serves as a gate that reinforces the omission of important information about certain US policies, including:

1. The second major crisis at hand: dealing with nuclear weapons and waste. Just as the document is weak on the earth crisis, it says next to nothing about this. To deal only with the negative developments in President Trump’s policy seems to serve as an affirmation of policy followed by the Democratic Party and the Reagan/Bush Republican Party.

2. The global system of US military bases, and the operations conducted from them.

3. The export of defence systems, strategies, weapons and training to other militaries and internal security forces (including crowd control and torture techniques).

4. The application of economic sanctions, with requirements that other countries also follow them. Such sanctions hit the poorest the worst, and have resulted in many unnecessary deaths (some half a million children in Iraq alone).

5. The overthrow of governments, because they don’t follow or want to integrate in the global economic system, no matter the effects on people.

The examples of this are in plain view ‒ and are certainly recognised by people around the world. The days when support for military coups without public scrutiny, for example, are gone. The killing of foreign leaders is seen for what it is ‒ murder.

6. The now (under Obama) institutionalised global assassination programme, including the use of drones to target individuals, giving a wide latitude for the killing of ‘collateral’ others.

7. The system of rendition, illegal detention without trial and torture.

Why omit mention of these? Not a problem? OK for us, but not for others?

People certainly have a right to come to any opinion, but it can be stated, and not hidden by a facade of altruism. These days, the emperor has no clothes. The above serve as the face of US foreign policy for many people, as does the myriad ways that US policy supports a country’s powerful, corrupt, wealthy, and often brutal, few.

Noam Chomsky is right, in his discussion of the US determination of ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’ victims, that this does not reflect a ‘double standard,’ but a ‘single standard’ ‒ “... the one that great powers typically observe.” (“Lesson from Kosovo,” 1999, in Yugoslavia ‒ Peace, War, and Dissolution, 2018, 133)

Alternatives

The one template plan is now in place, set by the US, EU, Japan and others, with similar policies posed by other possible directors, for example, Russia or China. All impose economic templates that work in self-interest, and which impose some form of debt bondage and various other obligations.

That there are many other alternatives possible is a given. Many different policies, many possible combinations ‒ and it is up to a country to decide on this, based on its own particular situation. Why not ask individual countries about their particular problems and priorities?

People in many countries, perhaps most, now need the political space to allow the discussion of and acting on alternatives. Will the US and its citizens work to support this?

In the end, the best foreign policy, including for national defence, is to foster the betterment of other people’s situations. The US seems to be a strong country, due its financial and military assets, but it is actually weak. The aim of self-interest, and 100% of the time, is no protection, no defence.

 

The Congressional Progressive Caucus: Where do you stand?

If the Caucus’ foreign policy is aimed at assisting US economic interests, and financial and business institutions ‒ to do abroad what is clearly opposed when done in the US ‒ then the Caucus can just come out and say: When it comes to foreign policy (and despite the raised fist on the cover of our people’s budget), we stand for AMERICA FIRST.

 

 

 

 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN