Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1511546633-scaled

Why Biden and Sanders should articulate how they’ll work with the UN to enact their agendas

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are saying the right things on foreign policy, but they're not talking as much about how they'll work within the confines of the United Nations.

Analysis | Washington Politics
At the next Democratic presidential debate, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are more likely to rehash dated stances on Cuba and the Iraq war than they are to outline a vision of U.S. engagement at the United Nations. Though Biden and Sanders vow to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and the JCPOA, neither has articulated how the U.N., central to both of those agreements, should be utilized to support global stability. The oversight is in plain sight: while both candidates profess a sorely-missed commitment to multilateralism, diplomacy, military restraint, and human rights, the foreign policy pages on both Biden and Sanders’ websites fail to once mention the United Nations. Rep. Ilhan Omar, however, recently introduced the “Pathway to PEACE” initiative – a package of bills that represent an important step in reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the U.N. A responsible U.S. foreign policy must re-center the Rooseveltian vision of the world, anchored within the U.N.’s international peace and security architecture. To do so comprehensively, presidential candidates should endorse “Pathway to PEACE” and go beyond, committing to adhering unconditionally to international law regarding the use of force, halting arms proliferation and stymieing the militarization of new arenas, and strengthening and expanding U.S. human rights commitments. Adhering unconditionally to international law regarding the use of force Biden and Sanders promise to end “endless” wars, stressing the need for Congressional approval for the use of force. Neither cite, however, the U.N. Charter as a prerequisite for U.S. military action. The Charter, which obligates the U.S. to refrain from the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” (Article 2.4) without U.N. Security Council authorization (Article 42), is reinforced by the U.S. Constitution (“all treaties made… under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”). The U.N. Charter provides a strong safeguard from military adventurism. Additionally, Biden and Sanders loudly criticized the Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani as unnecessary provocation. Missing was a call for respecting international law, an explanation of how the assassination breached international norms, and a discussion of how targeted killings (“drone strikes”) are problematic under the Geneva Conventions. In this case, strict compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law would have prevented a serious escalation that threatened war. The U.S. has violated the U.N. Charter and laws of war multiple times in recent decades, weakening international institutions and their ability to prevent conflict. This has resulted in deliberations about and flagrant violations of international law, increasing global instability. To reverse this, Biden and Sanders must enforce the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions regarding the use of force in the world.  Halting arms proliferation and stymieing the militarization of new arenas The Trump administration has exited nonproliferation treaties while the world has witnessed arms escalation and the Doomsday Clock is closer to midnight than ever. Biden and Sanders support returning to working toward nuclear nonproliferation. In addition to expanding multilateral nonproliferation frameworks, a responsible foreign policy should utilize the U.N. to halt the militarization of cyberspace and outer space. In cyberspace the threat of a cyberattack triggering an international crisis is well-documented. To prevent such an escalation, the U.S. must join global initiatives and bilateral agreements that are building a consensus on this critical issue. In addition to these initiatives (and others at the U.N.), the U.S. should press for a U.N.-brokered cyberspace code of conduct. All together these initiatives could halt escalation in cyberspace. In an era when a number of countries have signaled interest to compete in outer space, the U.S. should lead the U.N. to de-conflict. The Trump administration’s Space Force has done the opposite, cavalierly breaking U.S. obligations under the U.N. Outer Space Treaty. That 1967 treaty, championed by the U.S., commits the U.S. to the “use of outer space for peaceful purposes” and bans the placement “in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.” A foreign policy committed to multilateralism, diplomacy, and military restraint must reinvigorate U.N. negotiations and related measures to prevent an arms race in space. Strengthening and expanding U.S. human rights commitments Today U.S. foreign policy embraces authoritarianism over human rights. Biden and Sanders both commit to re-prioritizing human rights, but both candidates should specify exactly how they will support human rights. Rep. Omar’s “Pathway” does this, introducing three bills focused on specific international treaties seeking to protect the rule of law and vulnerable populations (The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child; the International Criminal Court (ICC); and a proposed Global Migration Agreement Act). In addition to these three bills, a comprehensive vision for human rights and inclusion should include the following initiatives: Re-joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, ratifying the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women, delivering on the U.N. Women, Peace, and Security resolution through the development of a feminist foreign policy, protecting refugees by enforcing the 1951 U.N. Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, and signing the Global Compact on Refugees. Decades of work have built an international human rights system that helps to protect individual and community rights. To demonstrate their commitment to human rights, international law, and multilateralism, Biden and Sanders must reinforce this system and build a humane foreign policy that respects individual and communities’ dignity.

***

The urgent challenges of today – COVID-19, climate change, and the refugee crisis – all require multilateral responses and prove that the U.N. is needed more today than ever. Amidst the Trump administration’s attacks on the U.N. system, however, alternative international systems (e.g. Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Collective Security Treaty Organization) have expanded and may continue to without a major shift in U.S. policy. The U.N. system is grounded in principles Biden and Sanders value: multilateralism, conflict resolution, and human rights. Sanders identified the U.N. as one of the greatest U.S. accomplishments, though he has yet to outline how his administration would engage the U.N. beyond climate change. Biden calls for American leadership but needs to define how America would lead the U.N. in building a more peaceful world. “Pathway to PEACE” along with the three dimensions outlined above should be the cornerstones of a new administration’s U.N. policy. Because of its American-linked origins, the U.N. is arguably linked more to the U.S. than any other nation. If the two Democratic candidates for president do not embrace the U.N., who will?


Photo credit: Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.