Press "Enter" to skip to content

Elizabeth Warren presents her anti-corruption message in an important speech on foreign policy

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday presented a vision of foreign policy that applied to international affairs the central motivation of her political career: that the system is manipulated against the middle class.

In a speech at the American University in Washington, DC, the Massachusetts Democrat accused US elites of pursuing global economic and national security policies that destroyed the American middle class, empowered multinational corporations and enriched the industry. the defense. with luxurious expenses and unnecessary wars.

"Beginning in the 1980s, Washington's approach shifted from policies that benefit everyone to policies that benefit a handful of elites, both here and in the world," Warren said. "Errors accumulated in the errors. Reckless and endless wars in the Middle East. Commercial dealings broke through with cruel contempt for our hard-working people. Extraordinary expansion of risk in the global financial system. Why? Mainly to serve the interests of large corporations, ignoring the interests of American workers. "

Your critique of Pentagon spending was sharper than what the main presidential candidates usually dare to do. The Pentagon is "captured by the so-called 'Big Five' defense contractors," he said, while US policy is being driven by his desire for profits, not by a consideration of values ​​or strategy.

Associated Press

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) speaks at the American University Washington School of Law on Thursday.

"American security and American values ​​should preempt the profit margins of these private companies," he said. "It's time to identify what programs really benefit US security in the 21st century, and what programs are limited to filling the pockets of defense contractors, then pulling out a sharp knife and making some cuts."

This anti-corruption issue was extended throughout his speech and was clearly linked to his best-known positions on internal politics. She argued that the corruption that generates inequality creates the outlook for authoritarianism, pointing to the leaders of Russia, Turkey, Brazil and China, who said they have built their power through the financial corruption of society.

"This combination of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism is a fundamental threat to democracy, both here in the United States and around the world," Warren said. "It is a threat because economic corruption knows no borders, and in a global economy, corruption can provide a strategic advantage."

Warren called for a new system of globalization that benefits workers rather than corporations and fights corruption among the rich, which, according to her, drives the worldwide rise of authoritarianism. This "defense of democracy", as she calls it, begins by "fixing what has gone wrong with our international economic policies" through the advancement of international labor rights, an antitrust repression against multinational monopolies, the closing of the paradises prosecutors and data protection laws. , the movement of illicit funds across borders and policies to address climate change.

It came out fiercely against "Trump's NAFTA 2.0," while calling for the president's new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. "It will not stop subcontracting, it will not increase salaries and it will not create jobs," he argued.

In many ways, Warren's vision is similar to that presented by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), One of the other leading progressive candidates who were thought to be contemplating a career in 2020. Sanders, who is also better known For his domestic and economic affairs, he presented his progressive vision of foreign policy in a speech in Missouri last year.

Like Warren, Sanders linked the rise of authoritarianism and the withdrawal of democracy with the increase in global inequality created by a global economic system leaning toward wealthy and powerful corporations.


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), A possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2020, delivered a speech on foreign policy in 2017 with many similarities and some key differences from Warren's.

S called for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, cuts to the Pentagon budget, no new production of nuclear weapons, a "first use" nuclear weapons policy, more control International arms deals and a boost to funding from the State Department, in addition to criticizing American interventions from Iraq to Yemen.

" I am not surprised that both have led the interconnection between our global economy and our foreign policy," said Stephen Miles, director of the progressive non-profit anti-war, Win Without War "I think that's a good thing, in DC, we often think of foreign policy as if we're going to bomb places."

But where Sanders' foreign policy vision was based on a critique of the misguided interventions of the United States in the 20th century as the blows backed by the United States in Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973, Warren's criticism of the foreign policy of the United States alone began in the 1980s. She acknowledges that the US foreign policy "It was not perfect, we were not perfect "But he maintains that, however," it benefited many people around the world. "

Unlike Sanders, who rarely discussed the idea that EE. UU It remains an important player in remote regions adjacent to Russia or China Warren argued that the United States needs to manage its decline as the world's only superpower while remaining in a dominant position to lead the world against such states.

"Both China and Russia invest heavily in their armies and other tools of national power," he said. "Both hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image. Both are working at full speed to redo the global order to adapt to their own priorities. Both are working to undermine the basic human rights that we appreciate. And if we can not make our government work for all Americans, China and Russia will surely succeed. "

That vision of a less omnipotent United States that still leads a system liberal international supported by the same allies and organizations is a restatement of the current conventional thinking of the Democratic Party.

"Warren sounds like someone who really wants to be president of the United States of America. America as opposed to the leader of an international political movement, which is how Bernie Sanders expressed in his foreign policy speech. "Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, the preeminent think tank of the Democratic Party establishment, said in an email

"Sanders had a more activist and defensive tone; s clinician with a closer focus on the US, but still had some sharp and resonant points, "he added.

Warren ended his speech with an attack on Trump and a closing phrase for Democratic primary voters to get used to hearing: "I believe in us" . I believe in what we can do. I believe in democracy and what we must do to save it. "

In other words: She is running.

Be First to Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *