Issue Position: Peaceful Coexistence

Issue Position

I believe our foreign policy must accomplish three tasks; strengthen our ties with our allies, establish workable diplomatic channels with our adversaries and reassert our role as the preeminent world leader regarding the issues that impact all nations. These tasks are not intended to elevate the United States above other nations nor to glorify our standing in the world. They are a practical path to address the significant issues we face globally, which, in my view, require a more reflective approach. An approach whereby we accept the nature of international relationships and the close economic, social and political ties we all share, as we grow closer in this digital century. I believe the United States is still in a position to develop and promote the plans that can motivate our allies, persuade our adversaries and drive the necessary actions to create a world in which our common goals can be attained.

First and foremost we must find common cause to develop trust among nations. Our efforts to bolster our diplomatic corps must be expanded and fully funded. We must adopt a posture of being willing to talk, negotiate and apply whatever peaceful means it takes to come to terms, without resorting to military force.

I would push to repeal the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), which has provided the legal justification for all acts of war, including the use of Guantanamo Bay military prison, since September 18, 2001. The AUMF was passed in the days after the attacks on 911 and was originally tied to the actors and groups responsible for those attacks. Over the intervening years, the legal jurisdiction has been un-officially expanded and it is now being used to justify troop activity, air strikes and drone attacks around the world, without a single declaration of war, or for that matter, the knowledge of Congress.

It is unclear who we are fighting or to what ends. What is clear, is that we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain these wars.

I am adamant that we must alter our present course on foreign relations and embrace the approach described above, because of the overarching uncertainty regarding the state of the world's nuclear arsenal. The United States and the Russians maintain roughly 90% of the 15,000 nuclear warheads on the planet. At this time, nuclear standoffs between us and also between the other seven countries that have nuclear weapons, are becoming more frequent and considerably more uncertain. The odds of a "limited" tactical nuclear war being launched, either intentionally or unintentionally, are rising. And of course, any chance for such a war must be averted.

Studies have demonstrated that as the launch times for nuclear arsenals have become reduced to minutes, the possibility of unintended nuclear strikes increases dramatically, and such hair-trigger launches have been narrowly avoided many times over the past few decades. Research has also shown that during moments of international crisis, the odds of unintentional nuclear launches go up dramatically. This means we must do whatever we can to lessen tensions around the world, not just as a matter of maintaining the peace, but as a matter of species survival.

All of this highlights the urgent need to reorder our foreign policy objectives. First we must find ways to reduce the pressures within crisis regions such as Ukraine and the Russian annexation of Crimea, the war on the Syrian people by the Assad Regime along with Russia and Iran, the building of artificial islands by China in the South China Sea and the cross-border India-Pakistan tensions. I am not calling for America to be the world's peacekeeper, nor suggesting that we are solely responsible for resolving these matters, but I am saying that these problems represent potential local flash points where local, tactical nuclear warfare can easily become manifest. And any local nuclear warfare will impact all nations on the planet, especially if it triggers larger scale nuclear launches of fifty or more warheads. At that point, aside from the immediate death and destruction caused by any bombs detonated, the dirt from those explosions released into the atmosphere, which would then surround the globe, will cause global cooling to an extent that species extinction along with plant die-off would likely jeopardize all life on the planet. While this horrific outcome has become normalized over the decades, and we no longer consider it during the course of our daily lives, the possibility, nevertheless, has never been more likely.

That is why I believe the first priority of our foreign policy goals must be the reduction and ultimate removal of all nuclear weapons, worldwide. Today, there are nine nations that have nuclear weapons, estimated to total 15,000 warheads, 9600 in military service, 5400 awaiting deactivation. But while the total number of nuclear weapons is declining, the world's arsenals are being continuously upgraded and made ever-more sophisticated, ever-more able to destroy civilization, if not evolution, across the planet.

The second priority must be the development of a just and equitable international economic model, promoted by the United States, extending to the international community. One that not only enhances the life-sustaining needs of the world's population but intertwines all people in an economic system, locally controlled, that provides ongoing economic development and sustenance. Ensuring that the current, unbalanced system becomes re-formed, enabling local economic decision-making supporting the local, internationally tied economy, is essential. Only then will the causes of discord, unrest and hatred be eradicated. This transformation will require a multi-national, multi-disciplinary assessment of the root causes of hunger, poverty, racism, religious intolerance, and jingoism, that now ravage our planet. We must take the bold, unreasonable stand, that we can accomplish this. We must see this as not only possible but inevitable, in order to avoid the prospect of our mutual destruction, as a rapidly shrinking planet hosts an increasing number of us, each seeking a healthy, productive and meaningful life, with what each of us has available. We must provide the leadership to ensure that what we all need, is readily available.

I would push for congress to renew its constitutional responsibility: "The Congress Shall Have Power To Declare War…" and discontinue its abdication of this responsibility in favor of allowing the President of the United States to determine when and where we deploy our military forces.

We must clarify our national objectives regarding when, where and how we use our military. There must be clear goals and expected timeframes (even if held secret within the military command and congressional oversight committees), so that we only declare war when the mission has been discussed, debated and voted in favor of, by members of congress.

I will not vote in favor of war unless the well-being of American citizens is truly threatened, or that of our allies. I do not consider the acquisition of resources to be a valid reason to go to war, even if those resources are considered critical to our economy and our standard of living.

The cost of war outweighs the benefits in all but a very few circumstances -- the loss of life, on all sides, being the greatest cost of war. The drain on our long-term economic health is also unacceptable, except in those rare circumstances where there was no other alternative.

I believe there needs to be great urgency surrounding our struggle for peaceful outcomes around the globe. As the possibility of an intentional, or even more likely, an accidental "tactical" battlefield nuclear strike grows more and more credible, the need to reduce global tensions and cement global interdependence, has become paramount. I will work tirelessly to promote these goals, with the necessary urgency!

Source