If he makes it to the White House, Iran, Russia and Latin leftists will benefit
By Walter Russell Mead
The Wall Street Journal
March 2, 2020
What would a Bernie Sanders presidency mean for U.S. foreign policy? Observers around the world are beginning to ask this question as the socialist senator leads his rivals for the Democratic nomination. The answers are disquieting. To the extent that a Sanders administration is able to implement the policies Mr. Sanders advocated in his major foreign-policy addresses in 2017 and 2018, and that his foreign-policy adviser Matt Duss has endorsed, the new administration will seek radical changes in America’s conduct abroad.
In Tehran, hopes for a Sanders presidency are high. Like his more centrist Democratic rivals, Mr. Sanders believes that the Trump administration’s abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal was both a political and moral mistake. Sanders administration diplomats would be quick to reach out to Tehran and the Europeans to restore the Iran deal and increase Iran’s access to world markets. Given the frequent criticisms Mr. Sanders and his leading advisers level at anti-Iran powers in the Middle East—particularly Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—his White House would almost certainly look for ways to reduce U.S. arms sales and military aid to these countries, giving Iran’s regional ambitions a substantial boost.
Mr. Sanders would also help the Kremlin. Though Sanders officials would likely denounce Russia both for its presumed past support for Donald Trump and its record on human rights, on balance Russia stands to benefit immensely from the implementation of the Sanders program. A ban on fracking and large reductions in U.S. energy production would offer Vladimir Putin a badly needed financial and political windfall. At the same time, reductions in American military spending and a renewed quest for arms control would likely relieve Russia’s military cost burden substantially. The overall result would be to strengthen Russia’s position vis-à-vis the U.S. and Europe.
For Beijing, a Sanders administration would be a mixed blessing. Ironically, Communist China is the best example of what Mr. Sanders thinks capitalism is all about: antidemocratic, hypernationalist, environmentally ruthless and founded on the suppression of workers’ rights. While a Sanders administration wouldn’t seek open conflict with Beijing, it is likely to be highly critical of the Chinese Communist Party’s human-rights violations and climate policies. Like Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders wouldn’t hesitate to use trade restrictions to pressure Beijing. On the other hand, stringent cuts to U.S. military spending would likely tilt the balance of power toward China.
Follow-up questions remain. Would the Sanders administration’s opposition to human-rights violations in Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as to the Indian government’s approach to its Muslim population, be consequential enough to undermine efforts to build a coalition against China? How heavily would the defense cuts affect the research spending necessary to meet China’s challenge in military technology?
Relations with European allies would be interesting. Mr. Sanders’s defense cuts and emphasis on U.S. disengagement from the Middle East would send shivers of concern up the spines of defense officials across North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Slow American growth and the economic dislocations resulting from the Sanders domestic agenda would likely cause serious problems for most European Union economies.
Yet a Sanders administration is likely to move closer to European, and in particular French, positions on trade, climate and finance. One should expect efforts to incorporate labor and climate standards into trade agreements, measures that would likely protect European and North American manufacturers and impose significant costs on global supply chains reliant on low-wage labor. In the past, labor rights would have been the primary focus of a left-wing effort to re-engineer the trade system. Under a President Sanders, climate will play at least an equal role. A Sanders administration would probably also embrace European ideas about a more tightly regulated international financial system, with equalization of business taxation and severe restrictions on tax havens and bank secrecy.
Latin America would likely be an important focus for Mr. Sanders. A sentimental fondness for the regimes in Nicaragua, Cuba and elsewhere in the region seems part of Mr. Sanders’s emotional makeup. Populist leaders such as Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador appeal to him deeply. A President Sanders would hope to correct historical injustices by using U.S. power to support left-populist and even left-authoritarian governments from Tijuana to Tierra del Fuego.
Much will depend on how pragmatically the new administration decides to pursue its ambitious aspirations. Mr. Sanders might well want to postpone major foreign-policy shocks while he works to carry out his left-wing domestic agenda. But his plans are as radical overseas as they are at home, and a Sanders presidency would almost certainly bring on upheaval and crisis around the world.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Not to worry. Biden scored a big victory on Super Tuesday and is well on his way to getting the Democratic nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment