Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Vision for A New Foreign Policy
Peace activist Cora Weiss delivered this speech at the 28th annual Conference for Peace sponsored by the New Jersey Coalition for Peace Action at Princeton University November 16, 2008. It appears here as part of the ongoing Moral Compass series, focused on the spoken word.
Since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there has never been a time like this.
A new president takes charge, it is time to talk together, to walk together and to work together. It is the only time we have.
On Day One, President Barack Obama must repeal the gag rule that prohibits US funds from supporting women and health clinics that discuss or administer abortions worldwide. Bush issued that gag order on his Day One. Obama must now expunge it.Obama needs to shut down Guantánamo, return that piece of Cuba to the Cubans and declare that his foreign policy will be based on the force of law, not the law of force.
When Obama issues his plan for the return of all soldiers and contractors from Iraq, and a program for the reconstruction of the country, he should not send them instead to Afghanistan. He should announce a diplomatic surge.
This new era began when Barack Obama opened his campaign, quoting Dr. King, and spoke of the "fierce urgency of now." When he became president-elect, Obama told us that "the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals, democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope."
Obama has promised to "return to an American foreign policy consistent with America's traditional values and wants to partner with moderates within the Islamic world to counter Al Qaeda propaganda."
Everyone here agrees that the agenda is long and difficult. Nuclear weapons, Iraq, Iran, Israel; Congo, Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, trafficking of girls and women, child soldiers, torture--and the list goes on.
As a strong believer in participatory democracy, I decided to ask people who are impacted by our foreign policy what kind of foreign policy they think we should have.
Lucy, in Nairobi, Kenya, writes: "We would like America to stop giving military support to countries in this region simply because we border Somalia. These arms find their way onto our streets and help fuel festering conflicts."
Secondly, she said, "Now that Bush is exiting...please can the US do more in ending the war in the DRC, Congo."
Loreta in the Philippines writes: "It was Obama's anti-war stance that made me think he would be better than Hillary. My hope is that his foreign policy will truly use the power of nonviolence to resolve problems. Use diplomacy, and carrots and sticks (incentives and sanctions), but do not give legitimacy to war as a means of conflict resolution.
"The world favored him because of the hope he would be multi-lateralist, listen to other voices and start a new world ethic among industrialized countries. They hope for him to lead in fair trade and resist corporate interests that ruin the environment.
"The presence of the US military in Mindinao," she concluded, "is adding to the negative views about the United States. We need humanitarian and development aid and not a US military presence."
Then there was the woman from Queens, New York, who said, "We need to re-establish our reputation around the world. People can relate to Obama. He is someone who grew up poor and is half Kenyan. He's an excellent communicator and will help diminish terrorism. Maybe they won't hate us anymore."
Since FDR, there has never been a time like this.
Never so much hope, never such high expectations. We must be careful not to give up our hope but to reduce our expectations so we won't be disappointed. The miracle has happened--the miracle of the most participatory inclusive campaign; the miracle of the election. Now we must keep our agenda alive, reasonable and doable.
"Nothing happens unless first a dream," said Carl Sandburg. And, "When we dream alone it is just a dream, but when we dream together, it becomes reality," wisely promised Dom Helder Camera, the late archbishop of Récife, Brazil.
So, I dream. Not nightmare dreams. Not daydreams. I dream "Why not?" dreams, and I welcome you to dream with me so they will become reality.
Why not call for the abolition of war as an institution? Why can't President Obama, by his actions, invest in diplomacy and return the State Department to its original size and significance? Why can't President Obama, by his words, build a case not only for taking unilateral steps to remove nuclear bombs from hair-trigger alert, and start abolishing our stockpile, and work for a treaty on nuclear weapons abolition, but build a case for the abolition of war? Why not?
Remember--return to the force of law, not the law of force.
The world once abolished slavery, colonialism, apartheid. And even the prohibition against women voting is gone. We can all vote, so, why not abolish war?
War is expensive, destructive, deadly, and as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no winners. The lethality of weapons, the homicidal presence of nuclear bombs on hair-trigger alert, makes war an impossibility if we want to preserve planet Earth with people on it.
Who do you think once said, "We are in the era of thermonuclear bombs that can obliterate cities and can be delivered across continents. With such weapons war has become not just tragic, but preposterous"? Dwight David Eisenhower--former general, former president of the United States.
Abe Lincoln, our next president's hero, questioned "an American invasion of a country that was in no way molesting or menacing us."
So, do I think Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, should take an oath never to go to war? You bet. And to keep Bill out of it? Absolutely. And should she agree to nominate progressive women of all colors and religions with peace and justice values to be ambassadors? For sure.
And should she read, memorize, and learn how to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution on Women, Peace and Security, unanimously adopted, which calls for placing women at all levels of decision-making, especially at the tables where the fate of humanity is at stake: peace-making tables? On Day One.
But let us be clear. It takes more than ovaries to put a woman at any table. We have just survived the most egregious example of fundamentalism in a skirt. The Republican candidate for vice president is the best reason why we can no longer call simply for more women. We need women who will work for the total elimination of nuclear bombs; women who will talk peace, walk peace and make peace; women who will work for the full implementation of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and justice for all; women who will reject all forms of torture; women who will promote education for all women and girls everywhere; women who will plant windmills, provide solar panels and cut polluting emissions; women who will throw our energy, enthusiasm, support and solidarity into a robust democratic United Nations; women who will cut the military budget; women who will help figure out how to restore economic stability to our nation and to the world. We could use men like that as well, caring men. We need gender equality--but not equal to the male policy-makers who have brought our nation, our image, our economy down in so many ways.
What do you suppose Bishop Desmond Tutu dreams about? He calls on the new president to close "that abomination, Guantánamo; to replace the guidelines on the treatment of detainees; launch a comprehensive inquiry into who authorized torture and when; and apologize to the nation and to the world, especially the Iraqis, for an invasion that has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster."
The retired archbishop includes the following on his list, with which I wholeheartedly concur: He says, "The standing of the US has been damaged by its hostility to the Kyoto Protocol on green house gases; its refusal to assent to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, establishing the ICC's role in prosecuting war crimes; its restrictions on the use of US funding to fight AIDS; and the arrogant unilateralism it has employed in declaring to be enemies any countries it deemed 'against us' because they were not 'for us.'" Why can't Tutu's dream list become reality? Why not?
The year 2009 has been declared the Year of Reconciliation by the United Nations. What an opportunity! What better resolution to stand on! Why can't Obama, no matter where he is speaking, start talking about what people are doing to heal the wounds of hatred, the wounds of anger? What are people doing to prevent violence, to teach peace? Obama's hero, Abe Lincoln, spoke of reconciliation as making strangers into neighbors.
How about giving all of our Peace Corps volunteers, and all of our Teach for America volunteers special courses in how to play an active and informed role in democracy? I believe that a humane, democratic, decent, peace-filled foreign policy begins at home. So a healthy foreign policy with well-prepared emissaries, negotiators and representatives depends on a good education for all our people.
We need to integrate peace education into all our education classes, from pre-K through university. We need to teach about human rights, gender equality, nonviolence, disarmament, sustainable development, social and economic rights, international law, human security and traditional peace practices.
The methodology of peace education is based on participation, on listening, on critical inquiry. That should also be the methodology of good governance. Obama can set the example. He is a good listener; he asks good questions. And look at how many hundreds of thousands of people he had participating in his campaign!
Everyone knows that the next president is an international person. So foreign policy should be second nature to him. He is not only half Kenyan and was educated in Indonesia but a town in Ireland has a welcome song ready for him:
O'Leary, O'Reilly,
O'Hallahan, O'Hara,
There is no one as Irish
As Barack O'Bama
Obama has said that the economy is the greatest challenge of our lifetime. But civil society has not yet gotten together to put together the frightening economic crisis with military spending. If half the world's $1.3 trillion military expenditure were put into infrastructure, millions of jobs would be created--$1.3 trillion will not prevent another 9/11. Only by proving to the world that we do not hate people, that we will not bomb people, that we will not put our military bases on their soil and our soldiers will not rape their women and girls; that we won't take their resources; that we will behave multilaterally; that we will encourage student exchanges; that we will sow trust; and we will condemn any act of racial, gender or ethnic discrimination will we prevent more 9/11's.
FDR established the life-saving WPA. He said, "I have seen the face of war, I hate war"; he sent his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, to develop and promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She later refused President Truman's demand that she reject the idea of economic and social rights because they were the product of the then-Soviet Union.
So, it is time to remember Roosevelt, time to recall Lincoln, time to ask: "Why not?"
It is time to dream together, to talk together, to walk together and to work together. Time for reconciliation. This is our time. It's the only time we've got.
- Posted in

25 Comments so far
Show All"We would like America to stop giving military support to countries in this region simply because we border Somalia. These arms find their way onto our streets and help fuel festering conflicts."
In other words, this woman is asking the United States to obey its own laws.
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 makes it illegal for the US to sell or donate weapons if it would "increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict".
Dennis Kucinich has filed a complaint with the Secretary of State demanding that the federal government enforce this law, specifically in regards to Israel's use of US manufactured and donated military jets being used to bomb Gaza.
Call your reps 202-224-3121 and contact the incoming administration http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision and tell them what you think.
I consider myself an idealist, and I wholeheartedly agree with the goals of this article, but I think Ms. Weiss missed an opportunity to argue her point from a very practical basis, namely, does our colossal military spending make us safer & can we afford it?
Weiss alludes to but hardly emphasizes the fact that the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined. Over the last 8 years we've spent trillions of dollars. Are we safer? I'd argue our military "adventures" have made us less safe. There is no rational argument for this level of spending. The total spending of all potential enemies is a tiny fraction of what the US spends.
The US has bases in more than 100 countries, literally. Why is it that those who oppose "globalization" don't oppose US military globalization? Bring the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Germany, Japan, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Kuwait... (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases for a partial listing)
Military spending doesn't just kill people. It's also an economic dead end. What can a tank produce? Or a bomb? If we took the money wasted on these products and produced computers, machine tools, factories, and solar panels, these would lead to additional economic activity.
The US, in its arrogance, has claimed to be immune from the laws of God, man and nature. I hope that more and more Americans will realize the necessity of facing the reality of a finite planet, finite resources, and a finite number of dollars. It's time to stop treating the US military as a herd of sacred cows. I want to see the day when it's the Pentagon and not my school that needs a bake sale to make ends meet.
dfairley,
This is so very right:
"Bring the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Germany, Japan, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Kuwait..."
For a listing and discussion of U.S. military bases and the empire they constitute, see also Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" (Henry and Holt & Co, 2004) (the list can be found on pp. 156-160).
The empire of U.S. military garrisons, which stretches from the Horn of Africa to Greenland, and from South Korea to Qatar (with the Navy controlling the seven seas, the Air Force dominating the world's skies, the nuclear missiles pointed at all four corners of the planet, and the space command keeping permanent watch over the globe), is costing this country astronomical sums of money and will be increasingly contributing to ruining it, if it is not dismantled in the years to come.
dfairly:Chalmers Johnson's "Sorrows of Empire" really takes up the issue of military bases. I was shocked at the number. He's got much online, particularly at www.tomdispatch.org I just started the last of his trilogy (of which "Sorrows" is the middle book), "Nemesis" and then I'll read the first one, "Blowback".
What a profoundly beautiful speech! I feel it conveys a powerful message of optimism. It brings me relief and joyous laughter in a my heart. Not everyone is a cynic! Some of us still believe that dreams have to power to create reality.
This is a new era.
This is our moment.
We are in a special place is the history of human evolution.
For the first time ever, I feel progressives can shape government policies so that they reflect our values and ideals.
Obama can not only inspire us and lead the world - he can teach us a new way of looking at life.
The flower of peace is blossoming.
I say: let a thousand flowers blossom!
With love, with dreams, with faith; together, we can heal the world.
"Everyone here agrees that the agenda is long and difficult. Nuclear weapons, Iraq, Iran, Israel; Congo, Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, trafficking of girls and women, child soldiers, torture--and the list goes on. "
Yes, we have many problems with must deal with. Wars, and civil wars, rogue nations, and terrorism. But if we work together, we can do anything.
"We must be careful not to give up our hope"
Count me in!!!
Abolishing war is a naively beautiful concept. Obviously it isn't possible. But that's what makes Obama special. He will work tirelessly to make the impossible become possible. It's up to all of us to help him succeed!
Can we?
Yes.
:)
Yes! We! Can!!!
.I have never met you, Joe, but I can see your smirk from here....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
We have a Treaty, The Kellog-Briand Act, that outlawed the use of war as an instrument of foriegn policy. It was signed and ratified and never repudiated; so, it is still the Law of the Land. Note how well it's been obeyed. There are many others. As actually implies, we do not obey our own or international laws, which makes the USA a Rogue State, by definition, same with Israel, our cobelligerent against the Palestinian Peoples. The USA's status as a Rogue State has lasted decades and is likely to continue under Obama as the Barbarian Think Tanks will continue to push their barbaric plans for their Barbarian representatives Pelosi and Reid, et al, to enact that are anti the true interests of the US citizenry. And Obama has shown us he is in the service of one of the most Barbaric--AIPAC. Obama's silence killed a lot of people.
After this Gaza atrocity I shall never be able to think of Israelis and their supporters (like Congress and Evangelicals) as anything other than Genocidal Monsters.
Why didn't the 2006 attack on Lebanon radicalize your point-of-view, or any of the very many earlier atrocities?
I agree with dfairly: the key focus should be upon the economic connection between maintaining and expanding our sprawling global military and CIA black ops presence, and the distortions these policies create in our domestic economy.
Let's have a frank national dialogue about guns versus butter. Ideological progressives like Cora Weiss, and Main Street pragmatists like Barack Obama, should be able to generate a popular consensus that scaling back on overseas militarism is the moral thing to do, the strategically prudent thing to do, and has now become an economically essential thing to do.
Granted, the Pentagon cash cow, and the related national security establishment black budget, generates billions annually in short term profits for corporate contractors and their individual, red-white-and-blue employees. Significant and powerful as that bloc of economic interests has become, the vast majority of American workers and taxpayers still seek to earn their livelihoods outside the military-industrial-national security complex.
For once, crass consumer materialism can work as a force for progressive political change. People are sick of guns, after eight years of George Bush incessant sabre rattling and reckless military adventurism overseas. And suddenly the butter is disappearing. There's a connection here that that needs to be exploited creatively.
As historian Chalmers Johnson has put it, it was the economic destruction wrought by World War II that finally forced Great Britain to choose between empire abroad and having a functioning social democracy at home. It was a painful process, but the Brits got it right. I believe the next couple of years is America's time to choose.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
BILL: Good points.
We need women to oppose war and nuclear weapons and weapons exportation? That would be wonderful. Many women in the United States voted for G.W.Bush, and many women in the U.S. who call themselves feminists think it is great progress for women to become major generals in the U.S. military, or fly bombers against the enemy. Many women in the U.S. Congress voted for Bush's wars and dismiss the men who oppose them. Many women in the U.S. would very much like to become CEOs or lawyers for very large arms producing and exporting corporations. Would that equality will bring peace. Don't expect great changes in "defense" policy from the next regime. The U.S. could very well be bombing the "rag-heads" for women's rights.
When it comes to politics, men and women are one and the same because money don't give a shit about sex.
I find this piece to be a strange and disgusting mix of stupendously naiive, dizzy, pollyannishness and classic Democrat spinelessness.
This was my favorite:
"We must be careful not to give up our hope but to reduce our expectations so we won't be disappointed. The miracle has happened--the miracle of the most participatory inclusive campaign; the miracle of the election. Now we must keep our agenda alive, reasonable and doable."
Does anyone think the corporate right talked of "reducing" their expectations to something "reasonable and doable" on this date in 1981 - following their "miracle" - the election of the reactionary Ronald Reagan?
But here is the most left-wing large-circulation magazine out there, telling us to "reduce our expectations" i.e concede our fight before even starting if!
And how can someone talk about a vision for a new foreign policy without ever using the word "militarism", "imperialism" or "Israel"?
---USAn---
Right on the money!
Well said PJD. Democrat spinelessness - yet so pompous!
That's a nice pipe dream but Obama's not gonna listen especially since our "new" Congress has just supported more of the same for Israel while giving Palestinians the MIDDLE FINGER yet again.
The Senate gave them more than the middle finger; they pulled the trigger and validated Atta's counterattack on 9/11.
I think that's because Atta's from Saudi Arabia. If he were Palestinian, I doubt they'd do the same.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Her views seem strangely delusional. She seems like she has a worldview from Disneyland.
.The question seems to be, what, if anything, will we do when President Obama fails to act in the fashion outlined by the author. Much has been made of the campaign rhetoric of this fine public speaker, but now all the speeches, all the campaigning that achieved his success in attaining that highest office must be translated into action.
Perhaps that will happen, I happen to believe otherwise though and ponder what the reaction of the American people to a President who promises one thing and delivers quite another might be? I sense that this nation looks in the wrong places for the proper solutions and courses this nation takes, it awaits heroes to deliver it. Thus , it will always be disappointed I fear, because the real solutions reside with us and not our awarding a mantle of heroism to those we put in office.
Our politicians are supposed to serve the wishes of the people yet do not. Will this latest hope?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Sioux Rose
ARDEE: I'll hazard a prognostication and it's based on a hybrid of Grover Norquist's goal to shrink government to the point it can be drowned in a bath tub merged with the "strategy" of pre-emptive war, added to the 3rd component of Naomi Wolfe's concept of "Disaster Capitalism."
Obama, like so many insurance companies and of late state budgets, will have to tell all the good children the cabinet is bare, the pot is empty, there is no $ left in the till. Indeed it's been spent on Mars (the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and to an extent that which is on accelerating throttle in Palestine) AND Mammon (handing billions to all those bankers, symbols of such unimpeachable integrity where pension funds and savings plans are concerned). There are only crumbs to pass out.
Of course a TRUE reconstruction of our entire economy starting with its basis in wealth (getting rid of the Fed) would take the enormous resources that remain at America's disposal and use them to design a system with fairness and ingenuity built into it. A parallel exists with respect to Mother Nature, in that NOTHING is wasted. Every would-be waste article is intead recycle back into systems and used by some entity. This type of management of resources is mandatory. When I think of the recent spill of toxic coal added to the question of what to do (short of installing the radioactive shit into new weapon designs) with all the spent ruel rods from nuclear plants, these deadly debacles need not exist so long as the wind blows, the tides turn and the sun shines. How shallow and short-sighted when mankind looks to profit first, and the aggressive means to protect it. Then, as America so valliantly displays, the twisted priorities insure that there's nothing apparently left for all the legitimate needs of a holistically functioning nation.
The U.S. has in large measure become the model of everything every other nation ought not puruse, and in that respect, perhaps will do some good acting as its own cautionary tale.
.Obama promised to thoroughly peruse the budget, line by line in fact ( a rather daunting task as the thing must weigh 100 lbs. or so).
Any honest review of that thing should make one come away with the necessity of reducing the budget of the Pentagon in order to do what is necessary to salvage our economy. Oh and Ive this bridge for sale too.......
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
We indeed need strong women in office who will fight for justice and peace for all. The change we in part must implement is electoral and campaign reform so that these female candidates will see the light of day.
Cynthia McKinney is a strong candidate who embodies the qualities mentioned in the article. But did she have a chance to be heard?
The progressive candidates are out there. They are ready to run.
We do not have a shortage of potential leaders but an electoral and campaign system that is assuring only a small percentage are "hand picked" for candidacy. It is interesting to note that the presidential debates on TV are run by a private corporation with their own interests, not a publicly owned one.
Fairvote.org is a good resource for efforts at electoral reform. Fair, open, clean elections will open the playing field to progressive candidates- both male and female.
PAProgressive:I like your first sentence. Really like it.