Seven Principles
Here is an alternative direction for US global engagement put forward by John Feffer at Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), Institute for Policy Studies.
FPIF is promoting a ‘Just Security’ program that calls for:
* A reduction of $213 billion in U.S. military spending, or one-third of the total “defense” budget.
* Dramatic cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals as a first step toward nuclear disarmament.
* An international process under the auspices of the UN to secure a viable peace between Israel and Palestine.
* A global carbon fee to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate funds to help countries transition to sustainable sources of energy.
* A large-scale, global plan to train four million new health workers.
This program is based on the following Seven Principles:
1. The US must advance rather than undermine international mechanisms and institutions. We should move from a unipolar system presided over by the United States to a secure, multipolar system that is held in place by a latticework of international institutions and laws.
2. We must support the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle. The United States should spend less time talking about the rule of law and more time practicing the rule of law—by upholding international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, ratifying the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, and supporting new international institutions such as the International Criminal Court.
3. We must lead by example, not by force. The United States is No. 1 in several dubious categories—most powerful nuclear arsenal, largest greenhouse gas emitter, leading arms exporter—so if we want to change the world we have to start by changing ourselves.
4. Global problems call for global solutions, but one size does not fit all. The world is a varied place and what works in one place for one problem may not work the same elsewhere.
5. We should support just policies abroad because they also encourage just policies at home. Global inequality, unregulated arms sales, and weakened international agreements and institutions are not just foreign policy issues. They have tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and the security of the population.
6. We need more public involvement in global affairs not less. We can’t leave it to the experts to solve the world’s problems because, in many cases, the experts got us into the jam in the first place. As those who live in this country, we must use democratic means to close the gap between what the polls say and what our leaders are doing.
7. Security is not just about the military. When we speak of security, we are talking about freedom from military conflicts and terrorist attacks. But we also believe that security involves access to sufficient food and shelter, good health care and good jobs, a clean environment and well-functioning, accountable political structures.
Foreign Policy in Focus is critical of both Republican and Democrat approaches to global engagement.
As this approach looks excellent to me, I thought it would be interesting to discover the perspectives of those of you with different view points.
FPIF website = http://www.fpif.org/
June 23rd, 2007 17:33
I am sorry if I can not give you another perspective on this. The scary part is somebody needs to tell the leader of the free world these concepts. You would like to think they come naturally.
June 24th, 2007 06:09
You wonder what a third of the military budget spent on education and housing in the areas of poverty within the US might achieve. What would a signal like this give to the rest of the world. Leading by example, if you oppose violence and terrorism, then surely reducing the availablity of weapons at home would be a good start. Ref point 3 you can hardly go around the middle east expecting the Taliban and others to be good and give up their weapons when the perception from abroad is that half the US citizens are armed to the teeth.
Of course the rest of the world donesn’t realise you have those tricky beer cans to open, that’s why you also have lots of fence posts, right?
June 24th, 2007 12:05
Hi Gillian-
I’m afraid I can’t give you another perspective on this either, but I did want to thank you for the post and the website reference. Very interesting at first glance; I’m looking forward to looking into it in depth.
Susan
June 25th, 2007 23:56
Hmmm… interesting to see so much agreement on this site. Perhaps we’re enjoying a little resting place.
It’s kind of dispiriting to sense that there is little chance of these principles and actions being adopted by any side of US politics.
David - I’d rather see 1/3 of the military budget spent on poverty in Africa — even the worst-off US child gets 100 times the educational resources of the average child in a peaceful and stable African country like Tanzania. Well, I am extrapolating from a calculation I did on educational expenditure in Australia. I assume the US and Australia spend similar amounts on education.
While it is easier to see the needs of those closer to us, the needs of the desperately poor in Africa are much greater.
June 27th, 2007 16:10
Gillian I take your point with regard to Africa. I’m reminded of the daughter of a friend of ours, she is always being given money and help of many kinds, yet she always has no money and needs things doing. The concept of fair trade, seems a good start. I get feed up with everyone expecting to buy things cheap, except of course if it is the job they do then that is different. So many people in the west seem to feel great that they have got loads of bargins, then feel even better that they have donated to charity, without thinking about the poor soul who helped supply those bargins. Considering the education available to most in the developed world, the level of ignorance seems appauling. A broken fingernail seems to demand more attention than crop sprays that are banned in the developed world but allegedly used by poor people in other countries often without adequate protection. I will have to apply my rant control mechanism, RCM. However I hope you can see where I’m coming from with this one.
September 4th, 2007 13:42
Hello Gillian,
Since everyone else has been in agreement, I will take up the task of bringing an alternative view.
PRINCIPLE 1 - A secure, multipolar system that is held in place by a latticework of international institutions and laws.
Why must we do this ? The international community is incapable of providing for anyone’s security. Look at the extensive list of failures by U.N. Peacekeepers to actually maintain a peace or protect helpless civilians. The votes of the irresponsible and rogue states are more numerous than the responsible ones.
PRINCIPLE 2 - upholding international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions, ratifying the core labor standards of the International Labor Organization, and supporting new international institutions such as the International Criminal Court.
We do support the law, being signatories to numerous mutually beneficial treaties.
We do subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Part of that agreement is that it applies only to those states who are signatories to the treaty, whose military is uniformed, which has a professional officer leadership, and is clearly under the control of that leadership. Otherwise it just don’t apply to terrorists, spies, freedom fighters or any other flavor of non-traditional forces.
Don’t know about the Intl Labor Organization, but do we want to have any agency outside our country determine the standards to be used in our country. As you note later in your remarks, one-size-fits-all is not the optimum solution.
As for the International Court, I do not trust that our soldiers will get a fair hearing in a politicized forum inescapably tied to the political hue and cry of the day. It will become another venue for other nations who will not oppose us openly to bring meritless suits.
PRINCIPLE 3 - We must lead by example, not by force.
Ron Reagan did lead by example, with Mr Gorbachav. Both nations drastically reduced existing stockpiles, destroyed weapons systems, retargeted remaining systems to reduce the ‘hair trigger’ that lasted for forty years. This agreement significantly reduced the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The elimination of these weapons would increase the scope and the number of conventional conflicts.
We are a large greenhouse gas emitter due to the size of our civilization. Per capita, relative to the size of our economy, we are a cleaner population than most countries. The solution is not for us to cripple ourselves, but to help other peoples improve their economies, their prosperity and standard of living.
Would you have us refuse to provide reliable arms to our friends ? Would you have us leave this type of assistance to those countries who oppose us, losing friends, losing influence, beginning a process that leads to isolation ? Other countries who oppose freedom and self determination, individual rights, freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, personal property rights would be only too glad to take advantage of such a retreat from responsibility.
PRINCIPLE 4 - Global problems call for global solutions, but one size does not fit all.
One size does not fit all, therefore my distinct opposition to any international government or court.
PRINCIPLE 5 - We should support just policies abroad because they also encourage just policies at home.
I agree with this statement as written, but I cannot support the examples you offer. Just policies are indeed to be promoted, but they have no effect on global inequality. Global inequality is a result of lousy governments and lousy legal systems. It has nothing to do with how much any other nation has. Where there is a reliable systems of laws, rules, courts, property rights, there is prosperity. Where there is tyranny, no laws or those subject to the whims of the rulers, little or no property rights, no personal freedoms, there will you find little comfort and less security.
Arms from the US are highly regulated.
PRINCIPLE 6 - We need more public involvement in global affairs not less.
Americans are highly engaged in the world. From the numerous folks who serve in official international organizations, to those thousands who volunteer time overseas, to the millions who volunteer at home for an unknown number of causes and give generously of their own monies, we as a people are deeply involved in the world.
PRINCIPLE 7 - Security is not just about the military.
That is so true, and that basic security is the government’s proper role. Beyond that, it is the individual’s responsibility and the people to provide for themselves food and shelter, health care, through hard work and trade comes good jobs. Through their exercise of their voting franchise comes as clean an environment and as clean a government as they have the will to demand.
In regard to the “Just Security” proposal: Gutting the US military, which is the inevitable result of this drastic reduction, will increase security threats around the world. Even though one does not like it, the fact is that we are the standard bearer at this time in the world. To remove ourselves as a capable actor would encourage the worst type of violent adventurism.
The same argument exists against the total disarmament of nuclear weapons. To lay ourselves bare would be an act of national lunacy and practical suicide.
Why is there the assumption that an international forum will succeed in Israel ? Will the Palestinians or the Israelis be more convinced of a solution just because there are more people telling them what to do ? International forums have historically met the needs of the international members, usually at the expense of the peoples who are the subject of the conference. Recall that Israel came into existence due to the needs of the members of an international conference. So, will we have another conference to remedy the errors issuing from one 60 years before ?
A global carbon fee is a plain attempt to legislate into being what doesn’t exist in reality. If sustainable power were truely viable, it would be selling like hotcakes as people could not get enough of it. Since it is not selling in a torrid fashion, that is your first clue that it is not yet ready for prime time. Taxing an existing technology only serves to increase the cost to you and I of our current living expenses without any benefit to the environment.
Without some background to justify the need for the 4 million new healthcare workers, it sounds suspiciously like an appeal to central planning, where some one person or small group knows what is best for the rest of us.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Denis Hogan