Foreign Policy

In 1845, Frederick Douglass arrived in Ireland to spread a message of abolition, a message of freedom and humanity. Observing the state of the people of Ireland, Douglass remarked “I see much here to remind me of my former condition, and I confess I should be ashamed to lift up my voice against American slavery, but that I know the cause of humanity is one the world over. He who really and truly feels for the American slave, cannot steel his heart to the woes of others; and he who thinks himself an abolitionist, yet cannot enter into the wrongs of others, has yet to find a true foundation for his anti-slavery faith.”

It was remarkable to me that this man, born into slavery, forced to silently endure the worst abuses and humiliation that the human mind can create, could look upon my own ancestors in Ireland and feel the same sense of injustice. That given all he had experienced in his young life, he could still look upon the suffering of another and adopt it as his own, and had the immense wisdom to understand what Dr. King would later coin as “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

This connection was as much a moral and emotional one as it was a practical one. Chattel slavery in the United States allowed subjugation in Ireland under British rule to flourish. To the opponents of a better life for the Irish, they could point to slavery in the United States and say “It could always get worse”. It created the illusion of freedom for the Irish peasant. And to the abolitionist horrified by the evils of slavery, one could justify the practice by saying “The conditions in Europe are barely distinguishable from that of a slave, so how can slavery be as evil or unnatural as you claim?” It moves the focus away from what is right and just, instead devolving into a discussion of comparisons where one form of oppression serves to legitimize the existence of another.

Injustice anywhere produces a race to the bottom and does not discriminate upon borders. We are certainly not strangers to this concept in our own time. When we demand better wages, corporations and politicians say that they can just use cheaper labor in the factories of China or Latin America. And the focus then becomes a vilification of the foreign worker when it would in fact be in our best interests if everyone was paid a wage that allowed them to live in comfort.

To add another aphorism to this discussion, you reap what you sow. And too often over the past century, American leaders and corporations have sowed the seeds of violence and chaos in foreign lands, and we have not been insulated from the consequences. If you want to understand the causes of mass immigration from Latin America to the United States in recent years, that should be kept front of mind. For example, in 1954 the CIA under President Eisenhower overthrew the democratically elected president of Guatemala and installed a violent authoritarian in his place. The reason? The new president was slightly more favorable to American corporations in Guatemala than the previous one. The consequences of this decision have led to decades of war, genocide of the Maya peoples, and instability that stunted any kind of positive progress in the nation.

To the east in Haiti, long economically oppressed by the French (also the primary driver of instability in the country), President Wilson ordered the Marines to invade and occupy Haiti, seizing their finances and taking control of their institutions. The last Marines did not leave the country until decades later in 1934. Today, Haiti is in desperate straits. Following another presidential assassination, the country has been thrust into chaos and the violence shows no signs of abating. Refugees fleeing to our country are being deported back to Haiti.

Anywhere you look in Latin America and the Caribbean you are likely to find the fingerprints of our intelligence agencies or corporations like the United Fruit Company. Gunboat diplomacy, corporate exploitation, and military interventions have not made us safer or advanced American values. It has only led to violence, instability, and mass migration to the United States. Where would Haiti and Guatemala be if our leaders had greeted them with friendship? If they hadn’t gone to such lengths to undermine their autonomy and stability? If the people of all these nations were allowed to govern themselves without interference from the world’s most powerful country? Would people still be fleeing by the hundreds of thousands all across the region? Would there still be so much pain and suffering in the world?

In that same vein, would values-focused leadership have led to the napalm-covered jungles of Vietnam or the blood-stained deserts of Iraq? Has the “war on terror” actually made us safer, or has that policy contributed to the growth of violence in the world? The current state of the world is proof enough that the strategy of warmongering is a failed one.

I don’t mention any of this to elicit feelings of guilt or cynicism. I don’t find that to be productive or particularly useful. I say this to draw a contrast between the direction we’ve too often been led down, and the direction that we could have and still can move in. So the question for ourselves a quarter-way through the 21st century is which direction will we move in? Will we continue to uphold the status quo, where the American contribution to the world is through bombs and bullets? Or will the world once again look upon our flag with inspiration? To see the stars and stripes as allies in the fight against misery and injustice? Where we uphold the words of the Declaration unapologetically?

It is not a withdrawal from world affairs that I seek, rather a new approach centered upon the values we were founded on. I want to help create a world where it is American farmers that are leading the way to save millions from hunger and famine. Where American medical expertise is working to heal the sick and prevent another pandemic from ever spreading again. Where we leverage our colossal power in world affairs to lift up labor standards all across the world. Where American love, kindness, and compassion inspires the creation of a humanitarian, and not the anger, hate, and powerlessness that inevitably results in violence.

And in the rare occurrence when military force is necessary to prevent a greater evil from gaining power, we must act accordingly. That is the current situation in Ukraine. The lesson learned from the Second World War is that appeasement only empowers authoritarianism. If Ukraine falls to Russia, Putin will not stop there. He will continue to roll westward to complete his dream of restoring the Soviet Union, and it will come at the cost of millions of lives. Taking a stand here by providing resources to the Ukrainians is necessary to prevent greater tragedy in the future.

Likewise, we cannot turn a blind eye to genocide whether it is occurring to the Uyghur people of China, the Rohingya of Myanmar, the people of Gaza, or in the Tigray region of East Africa. Diplomacy and humanitarian aid will not solve every conflict, but they must be the first tools utilized when encountering mass cruelty and should be funded as such.

It is a fair question to ask “why send weapons to Ukraine and not to any of the other peoples who face potential genocide?” Or “why are you not choosing a side in the conflict in Sudan?” The distinction I draw is that because Ukraine was invaded, and it is a state to state war where one nation is significantly stronger than the other, it makes moral and practical sense to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. Putin has made clear that if he is successful in Ukraine, the offensive will not end there. It is a strategy and way of thinking that I tentatively employ, but this is a very rare occurrence where I believe it to be the best response of a bad situation. The dynamics of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are much more clear cut than the civil war in Sudan is, the possible objectives much more visible. I am more than wary about following anything resembling the “containment” thought process following the Second World War. In the other bad situations mentioned, it is not clear that sending weapons would bring about a better outcome than a significant investment in diplomacy. 

The best strategy, I believe, is to prevent these ‘bad situations’ from occurring in the first place. Too many of the world’s conflicts today are being fought with American-provided weapons from administrations past, who lacked the foresight to see the ripple effects of their actions. We’ve too often defined our identity in the world through opposition to others, instead of by the values explicitly stated in our founding documents. Even now we see war hawks on both sides of the aisle, itching to renew the Cold War with China in place of the Soviet Union. The only beneficiaries of the warmonger’s approach to global affairs are the weapons manufacturers, the political recipients of their donations, and the 24-hour news media that was born out of violent conflict. To do better, we would do well to keep in mind what Mr. Douglass said, that “the cause of humanity is one the world over”

Policy List

As Frederick Douglass said “the cause of humanity is one the world over” and I intend to lead with that sentiment. Improving the lives of others across the world is not a sacrifice, it is necessary for our survival. Rather than spreading violence across the globe, my focus is on an approach that contributes to a common happiness, and a shared future that is built upon the values of health, equality, democracy, and liberty both in our district as well as the world.

• Foreign aid that empowers people from the bottom up, rather than acting in the interests of predatory corporations
• Aid to Ukraine as well as a commitment to rebuild the region when the Russian invasion is finally defeated
• International treaties and standards designed to raise labor standards (pay, hours, safety conditions…) all over the world, with significant penalties for companies who violate them
• Distribution of medical aid and vaccines with a focus on eradicating deadly diseases such as tuberculosis and COVID-19, including technology sharing to allow governments to manufacture their own supplies
• Increase the global contribution toward fighting climate change through agreements such as the Paris Climate Accords
• Increased funding and staffing for diplomacy, with human rights being the primary focus