Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1506895772-scaled

How Young People Will Change the Direction of U.S. Foreign Policy in the New Decade

A diverse group of young policy professionals has joined forces to start a new organization that will develop a foreign policy platform for the next generation.

Analysis | Washington Politics

At the close of the decade, American foreign policy is in disarray.

Washington is no closer to disentangling itself from endless wars than it was 10 years ago, and the U.S. appears to be stumbling into yet another war, this time with Iran. The Trump administration has withdrawn from critical international agreements and alienated its closest allies. The United States is actively abetting a humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Relations with Russia are at a post-Cold War low, and Kim Jong Un hasn’t backed away from his penchant for issuing not-so-veiled threats.

Will the next decade be any better? Unless we make some fundamental changes, prospects seem dim.

As we approach the end of the Trump administration’s tumultuous first term, a return to the status quo ante will not resolve the underlying foreign policy challenges facing the U.S. today. With a new decade comes a new opportunity to fundamentally change the way that the United States engages with the world. Rather than continuing to champion a force-first –– and often force-only –– approach, U.S. foreign policy should instead emphasize empathy and engagement, with the goal of building a more just and stable future.

No one understands this need for change better than young people, who have taken center stage in the struggle for justice in recent years.

Greta Thunberg — a 16-year-old activist from Sweden — has emerged as a central figure in the global fight against climate change, and the young activists of the Sunrise Movement have pushed the Green New Deal into the mainstream of American politics. March For Our Lives –– spearheaded by a group of teenage school shooting survivors –– has dramatically changed the conversation around gun violence and the militarization of domestic police forces in America. Black Lives Matter has worked tirelessly to end violence and systemic racism against black people. And legislatively, young policy advocates have played critical roles in passing legislation to end the war in Yemen.

These movements and others like them are successful and popular because they advocate for solutions that are commensurate to the scale of the problems.

Over the past year, a small group of us have sought to apply this approach to foreign policy. Our group, which we are calling Foreign Policy Generation, consists of twelve young policy professionals with a diverse range of personal and professional experiences. We joined forces to develop a foreign policy platform for the next generation — a platform that could be championed by the now-largest voting bloc in the United States. More than just a policy wish list, we have endeavored to develop a framework that can help guide thinking as we face new challenges in the next decade.

Central to our deliberations is the idea that foreign and domestic policy are inherently connected. As long as we fail to recognize the linkages between the challenges and injustices we face at home and those we face abroad, the solutions we put forth will fall short.

For example, as proponents of the Green New Deal understand very well, an effective response to the climate crisis cannot rely solely on building solar farms or scaling back factory farming. Incremental policies like these barely scratch the surface of the problem. Instead, we must address the climate crisis in a holistic manner that fundamentally reshapes the economy, lifts scores of people out of poverty, justly transitions workers to low-carbon jobs, and ends U.S. oil-driven imperial adventures overseas.

In addition to climate change, Foreign Policy Generation applies the same logic to every aspect of foreign policy, including, nuclear weapons, trade, immigration, and the use of force. These issues cannot be tackled in their respective silos; they are all part of the larger U.S. foreign and domestic policy ecosystem, and therefore must be considered in tandem.

It is past time to replace the outdated assumptions that underpin U.S. foreign policy and redouble efforts to ensure that U.S. actions help, rather than harm, people around the world.

As we enter a new decade, let’s embrace the opportunity to reform U.S. foreign policy. Global, structural problems require global, structural solutions.

Our group’s New Year’s Resolution? Fight hard to turn these principles into policy.


Analysis | Washington Politics
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less
SPD Germany Ukraine
Top Photo: Lars Klingbeil (l-r, SPD), Federal Minister of Finance, Vice-Chancellor and SPD Federal Chairman, and Bärbel Bas (SPD), Federal Minister of Labor and Social Affairs and SPD Party Chairwoman, bid farewell to the members of the previous Federal Cabinet Olaf Scholz (SPD), former Federal Chancellor, Nancy Faeser, Saskia Esken, SPD Federal Chairwoman, Karl Lauterbach, Svenja Schulze and Hubertus Heil at the SPD Federal Party Conference. At the party conference, the SPD intends to elect a new executive committee and initiate a program process. Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Does Germany’s ruling coalition have a peace problem?

Europe

Surfacing a long-dormant intra-party conflict, the Friedenskreise (peace circles) within the Social Democratic Party of Germany has published a “Manifesto on Securing Peace in Europe” in a stark challenge to the rearmament line taken by the SPD leaders governing in coalition with the conservative CDU-CSU under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Although the Manifesto clearly does not have broad support in the SPD, the party’s leader, Deputy Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, won only 64% support from the June 28-29 party conference for his performance so far, a much weaker endorsement than anticipated. The views of the party’s peace camp may be part of the explanation.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.