What do progressives stand for? Inside, I've outlined a list of progressive principles and values. Given these principles, what does a progressive foreign policy look like? In the main body of this essay I give you my view and ask for yours; so, there's more...
Here is a sample of principles and values drawn from the dkospedia: 1) Opposition to authoritarianism, 2) Accountability, transparency, dissent and disagreement, and respect for the minority interests on the part of the governing majority, 3) Equality of access and opportunity to all. Human and Civil Rights are to be extended to all, 4) Too heavy an accumulation of power in any one branch of government, majority party, economic sector or means of information distribution is to be guarded against and balanced (with checks) is the ultimate objective, 5) The government is the steward of the public treasury, the public interest and environmental/natural resources that are part of the commons. As such it needs to be empowered to check whichever forces may arise to put these in jeopardy. 6) The interests of Corporations should never be put before the interests of citizens, 7) The U.S. is an active and responsible member of the world community and must observe all international law and treaties it is a party to, 8) Wealth gaps are both anti-democratic and anti-progressive, 9) A strong public sector is the mark of a healthy, progressive and just society, 10) Certain functions should always have protections from the vagaries of the market, and are more justly, efficiently and economically administered as public services, 11) Equity and equality are not one in the same 12) Advances in science and technology are both desirable and possible and it is in the public interest to have government support of these arenas, 13) Justice, sustainability, democratic governance & accountability, and an eye to future as well as past generations are the guiding principles for democracy to flourish, and 14) The above principles apply globally, but are most effectively implemented locally.
I agree with all of them, particularly the last. These principles and values, progressive principles and values, do apply globally. And, I would add that we should demand that they apply globally. Progressives have a tendency, I think, to focus too narrowly on domestic issues ignoring foreign policy entirely, or, worse, putting forth a foreign policy that tolerates illiberal regimes, like realists do, whatever the reason.
But foreign policy is incredibly important. As is on display in Iraq, no security means no anything, be it life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, whatever. If foreign policy means anything, it means developing a global strategy for security and implementing it. Unfortunately, too often progressive policy toward conflict of any kind is to avoid it, at all costs, and hope it either: 1) goes away or 2) we can talk about it until it goes away. What progressives seem to never want to do is use force.
I think this is completely inconsistent with a progressive ideology. If we despise authoritarian governance here, we should despise it in Iran. If transparency is important here, we should insist that the Chinese be transparent as well. If free speech is important here, we must demand that it be allowed wherever it is not. The question is how do we apply these principles?
The neo-cons thought democracy could be forced onto an alien culture by putting people under the jack boot. I think this is wrong given human nature; if you punch me, my first reaction is to punch you back, harder. Maybe, had enough troops been available from the start, Iraq may have gone a different way--we'll never know. But, what I do know is that certain regimes are so illiberal, so totalitarian and brutal, so indifferent to human rights, that their existence offends even the least developed sense of justice.
What should we do about those regimes? And, what do we do about those organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, which operate in a vacuum, free from any sort of restraint, whether moral or legal? I think this country has a duty to bring order where there is chaos, and to establish security where the mob rules. I believe that military force is a viable option, but only under certain circumstances and according to narrowly tailored rules.
First, we should never again engage in open war without the support of the rest of the world; if the cause does not galvanize others to act, then either it is not worth fighting or peaceful means have not yet been exhausted. Second, once a decision to use force is made, maximum force should be applied; only overwhelming military force can end a conflict in a short enough time that loss to innocent life is reduced to a minimum.
Another way to deal with such lawlessness, a way near and dear to my heart as a young soon to be lawyer, is to work to strengthen international law. I think the US Supreme Court took a huge step in legitimizing international law by reining in GW and his administration using the Geneva Conventions. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the military commissions trying Hamdan under the UCMJ and pursuant to the ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, lacked the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violated the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. This is an extraordinary ruling and goes a long way toward bring law to what once was lawless territory: the international arena and war.
But, we should not shy away from using force or feel shame and embarrassment for having a powerful military. Neither should we have a knee jerk reaction opposing any war against any enemy for any reason at any time because, like or not, war is sometimes necessary. So, this diary is really a question. I want to know what Kossacks think about this question: What does a progressive foreign policy look like?