The incoming Biden administration likely represents a return to US foreign policy as usual. Here's how a future left-wing administration could begin to improve on that.
A second comment: Although I agree with you that the U.S. shouldn't intervene to end "human rights abuses" (obviously extremely broad and counterproductive if applied) all over the world, I think it's worth discussing intervening in individual cases of extreme abuses such as genocide/crimes against humanity if it's possible legally on the national and international level and with the backing of all great powers (so exclude Kosovo or Syria), if truly all channels of dialogue have been exhausted (exclude Libya, where the AU was still negotiating w Gaddafi) and if there's a good chance of success. So these cases obviously wouldn't happen often - World War II is such an example. However, instead of having bases all around the world, the U.S. should contribute civilian staff, troops and resources to UN missions and deploy them if host countries request them and it makes sense strategically and politically (so any country where the U.S. has a history of violence would fall out - that would be a sizeable chunk of the globe). UNMISS in South Sudan with its civilian protection mandate could be such a case. The South Sudanese population overwhelmingly supports UNMISS: https://unmiss.unmissions.org/public-opinion-survey-reveals-widespread-hope-lasting-peace-among-south-sudanese
These are good ideas, but what I'm missing are proposals for transforming the global liberal economic order currently undergirded by US imperialism. Democratizing the IMF, WTO and World Bank, orienting these transformation along the lines of the New International Economic Order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order
Also, on point 5 I have a concrete proposal: Expand Peace Corps, turn it into a two-way street so foreigners from host countries could also do community service in the U.S. (for example old age care homes, working w refugees) under the condition they are not used to push down wages/do not replace workers, focus more on the cultural exchange aspect than the development cooperation aspect of Peace Corps (although in some cases volunteers do help fill needs) and open it up to people who don't have a college degree.
Thank you, Daniel, for proposing a positive leftist agenda - it's a welcome departure from the leftist focus on what everyone else is doing wrong. Personally I view the US Presidency as a "One Ring" that cannot be wielded for good - or, as Tom Waits once wrote for a different context: "And in the moment of aiming, the gun turns into a dowser's wand and points where the bullet wants to go."
That aside, I would humbly suggest that one of the foundational elements of the US Imperial Power is the monopolistic relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia (and other oil-producing middle eastern nations) that results in (1) the laundering of petrodollars unaccountable capital invested back in the west, (2) a constant flow of climate destroying fossil fuels to the west, (3) region-destabilizing security agreements and weapons deals that entrench elite Sunni interests and US-friendly authoritarian regimes, and (4) the entrenchment of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, further expanding and perpetuating US power and influence.
My sense is that if this capital-extraction-security-weapons relationship was broken and the US dollar ceased being the global reserve currency we would see American imperial power decline. When I read your 20 point program above I don't see anything that would truly counter, dismantle, and replace this series of interlocking relationships that have made the world worse in innumerable ways for everyone but wealthy elites on both sides.
Hi Daniel,
A second comment: Although I agree with you that the U.S. shouldn't intervene to end "human rights abuses" (obviously extremely broad and counterproductive if applied) all over the world, I think it's worth discussing intervening in individual cases of extreme abuses such as genocide/crimes against humanity if it's possible legally on the national and international level and with the backing of all great powers (so exclude Kosovo or Syria), if truly all channels of dialogue have been exhausted (exclude Libya, where the AU was still negotiating w Gaddafi) and if there's a good chance of success. So these cases obviously wouldn't happen often - World War II is such an example. However, instead of having bases all around the world, the U.S. should contribute civilian staff, troops and resources to UN missions and deploy them if host countries request them and it makes sense strategically and politically (so any country where the U.S. has a history of violence would fall out - that would be a sizeable chunk of the globe). UNMISS in South Sudan with its civilian protection mandate could be such a case. The South Sudanese population overwhelmingly supports UNMISS: https://unmiss.unmissions.org/public-opinion-survey-reveals-widespread-hope-lasting-peace-among-south-sudanese
Hi Daniel,
These are good ideas, but what I'm missing are proposals for transforming the global liberal economic order currently undergirded by US imperialism. Democratizing the IMF, WTO and World Bank, orienting these transformation along the lines of the New International Economic Order: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order
Also, on point 5 I have a concrete proposal: Expand Peace Corps, turn it into a two-way street so foreigners from host countries could also do community service in the U.S. (for example old age care homes, working w refugees) under the condition they are not used to push down wages/do not replace workers, focus more on the cultural exchange aspect than the development cooperation aspect of Peace Corps (although in some cases volunteers do help fill needs) and open it up to people who don't have a college degree.
Thank you, Daniel, for proposing a positive leftist agenda - it's a welcome departure from the leftist focus on what everyone else is doing wrong. Personally I view the US Presidency as a "One Ring" that cannot be wielded for good - or, as Tom Waits once wrote for a different context: "And in the moment of aiming, the gun turns into a dowser's wand and points where the bullet wants to go."
That aside, I would humbly suggest that one of the foundational elements of the US Imperial Power is the monopolistic relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia (and other oil-producing middle eastern nations) that results in (1) the laundering of petrodollars unaccountable capital invested back in the west, (2) a constant flow of climate destroying fossil fuels to the west, (3) region-destabilizing security agreements and weapons deals that entrench elite Sunni interests and US-friendly authoritarian regimes, and (4) the entrenchment of the US dollar as the global reserve currency, further expanding and perpetuating US power and influence.
My sense is that if this capital-extraction-security-weapons relationship was broken and the US dollar ceased being the global reserve currency we would see American imperial power decline. When I read your 20 point program above I don't see anything that would truly counter, dismantle, and replace this series of interlocking relationships that have made the world worse in innumerable ways for everyone but wealthy elites on both sides.