Kate Kizer on a New Direction for Progressive Foreign Policy

This podcast episode includes references to the Eurasia Group Foundation, now known as the Institute for Global Affairs.

Transcript:

November 26, 2019

KATE KIZER: In reality, U.S. security is based on how we build security for other people around the world. And so it's this idea of collective human security that we want to build, not just using the military to dominate and impose our interests.

***

MARK HANNAH: Welcome to None of the Above. This is Mark Hannah from the Eurasia Group Foundation. I am sitting here today with Kate Kizer. She is the policy director of the advocacy group Win Without War. I’m delighted to be sitting here with her in D.C. Kate, I wanted to start off by asking you, how did you get into this field? What got you interested?

KIZER: So, it's going to get really nerdy because when I was like ten or eleven, I asked my parents to subscribe me to Foreign Affairs magazine. So I actually have been this nerd for a long time.

HANNAH: You must have been really popular in middle school.

KIZER: Yeah, it's really cool. Really cool. And through high school, obvi.

I mean, both my parents were very internationally oriented, but my father was, I would say, more on the neoconservative side of the house. And so, I grew up very much believing in this kind of American exceptionalism paradigm. The United States was a force for good in the world. We were always doing good. There was not a lot of questioning what was happening. Military force was always good. And I thought that way for a really, really long time. I was also raised in a predominantly white city, small town. Park City, Utah, is where I grew up, and so I was very isolated. I traveled to Europe as a sixteen-year-old, which really opened my eyes. But again, it was Western Europe. I didn't have a lot of eye opening experiences to what the world was really like. And I'm very aware of that privilege now because I ended up studying in Egypt before the revolution in 2010.

Interlude featuring archival audio

KIZER: It was a totally eye-opening experience for me, just in terms of “people are people no matter where you go.” And that, I think, is really what drives progressive foreign policy, recognizing that and humanizing other folks around the world and understanding everyone's really working for the same things. And so we should be aligning U.S. interests towards those common desires for dignity and justice and security we all share.

HANNAH: Now you're at Win Without War. Can you tell us a little bit about what that organization does and what you do there?

KIZER: Sure. Win Without War is a national grassroots advocacy organization. We work with over half a million affiliate activists across the country to help articulate and push for a progressive foreign policy for the United States, one that is much more humane and constructive in the international arena to build a more peaceful and just world.

HANNAH: Are you a pacifist?

KIZER: No, actually, we are not. There are certain cases where military force might be justified as a last resort. Unfortunately, in recent history, at least in terms of U.S. foreign policy, it's largely not been used in the right way or actually as a last resort. So we haven't come up against a situation where we support the use of force.

HANNAH: In American history necessarily, or…?

KIZER: You know, I think perhaps World War Two as the last example, but certainly not since 9/11 in this era of endless war.

HANNAH: But what about this idea that going to help vulnerable populations under threat from hostile nations or oppressive regimes is the job of the U.S. military and that it should be used as a force for good and global stability? What's wrong with that?

KIZER: I think there is a role for the military in our toolkit for foreign affairs. But I think for so long, the U.S. military has been seen as a kind of solve-all for political problems around the world. And at the expense of—the atrophying of—all the other tools within our national security toolkit, whether that's development, cooperation, diplomacy, all of these things this administration certainly has eschewed, but largely have been left by the wayside by many previous administrations as well. One result—or one reason—is because policymakers in this town are really interested in short term results. When they're thinking about policy formation, they're only thinking about what will serve our purpose in the short term. They're not thinking about the long term effects of this policy. What are the long term interests of the United States in this region of the world? There's often not a lot of historical thinking about what's happened in this region. What has been the U.S. role? Why are we here?

And so without all of that context, the military seems like a nice tool to solve that problem. But it often ends up with more destruction and chaos. Progressives come at this from a very different viewpoint, where sure, the military has a role as a last resort.

But in reality, U.S. security is based on how we build security for other people around the world. And so it's this idea of collective human security that we want to build, not just using the military to dominate and impose our interests.

HANNAH: So, Kate, what then is the solution? How do we get that context? Do we hire more historians in the Defense Department? Seriously, what is the practical way in which we can enact that change?

KIZER: Well, I think you made a good point in that personnel is policy, right? And so I think you have to bring people into the national-security-making apparatus who have a variety of institutional backgrounds and lived experiences in particular. That way, people aren't just thinking about, “What's the A-Z of this policy?” But instead, “What's the actual impact of this policy on people on the ground? Who are the folks who would know the local solutions to this problem that we're only looking at from an international perspective, or maybe even a national level if we’re really close with that foreign government?” And that can be activists. It can be indigenous groups. It can be civil society. A variety of actors I think would not necessarily be part of a regular policymaking process—at least as I've seen it played out like at the National Security Council. But with those differing perspectives—which, of course, would foster diversity and inclusion as a result—you'll end up with a lot of different creative solutions that maybe wouldn't be tested out otherwise.

HANNAH: You mentioned that the last justified war the United States fought was World War Two. So what about Afghanistan after 9/11, when al-Qaeda had committed the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor? Shouldn't we have sent the military to topple the Taliban? And if not, what else could we have done?

KIZER: It's a very interesting question. It actually comes up a lot in progressive circles. And I think one thing a lot of people don't talk about that's interesting is that there was actually a deal on the table for the Taliban to give Osama bin Laden to the Organization of Islamic Countries, the OIC. And the Bush administration rejected that proposal multiple times when it was made and then invaded. What people don't think about is there was absolutely a public desire to retaliate for what happened on an emotional level. I absolutely understand that.

But at the same time, if we were able to achieve our objective in getting Osama bin Laden and bringing him to justice through non-military means, maybe that would be more legitimate than us invading a country and then occupying it for twenty years and changing our objectives.

HANNAH: I mean, that reminds me of a conversation I was having with a veteran of the Afghan War who was there when they killed Osama bin Laden. And he remembers getting a phone call from his mother, wondering, “When are you coming home? The mission is accomplished, right? And we've achieved what we've set out to do.” But by that point, it seems like the mission had been so broadened, and it wasn't clear what we were doing.

So, of course, after we leave Afghanistan, civil war will continue and will look really ugly. Does the United States have an obligation to care about the aftermath of its withdrawal? Do we, in Colin Powell's words, “You break it; you bought it?” Are we responsible for the aftermath when we withdraw?

KIZER: Well, I think to start off with, we have to recognize the conflict in Afghanistan has been going for nearly four decades at this point. And the U.S. has played a military role, whether in giving weapons to militias or mujahideen in the ‘80s, or the invasion that we see now and occupation of the country. As progressives, we believe we have a moral responsibility to help shape a sustainable peace in Afghanistan. But I also think we have to be incredibly realistic that, a) the United States cannot impose peace, and b) our military presence doesn't actually do anything to help build sustainable peace.

And so we support withdrawal from Afghanistan. But just like all of the military withdrawals from these endless wars, we should be seeking to do it in the most humane way possible.

HANNAH: And what does that include?

KIZER: I think in Afghanistan, attempting to negotiate a deal to have some type of commitments on paper or that you can use in later negotiations is a good first step. But I also don't think the U.S. withdrawal should be predicated on concluding that deal with the Taliban. I absolutely think you should. I think that's a key way to kick off inter-Afghan talks that should be inclusive of the entirety of Afghan society and also multilateral and bring in regional players. But at the same time, if that doesn't work, the U.S. shouldn't just stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. That military presence incentivizes the parties in the conflict to continue fighting. One of the things that's really difficult for a lot of Americans to reckon with on an emotional level, I think, is that any type of military withdrawal is not going to be bloodless. The United States has really—you know, I try not to use the E word—established a global empire at this point. And what we're seeing is what a withdrawal or kind of ending of that empire actually looks like. How do you extricate these troops that are, most often, not keeping the peace? They're involved in active conflict or actively helping fuel the conflict in terms of civilian casualties and building on local grievances that then continue to drive conflict even after they've left.

Then what are the other tools we can invest in post-withdrawal to help build that sustainable peace? One of them is peace building that is really focused on local actors using local solutions to address those drivers to conflict. One is on multilateral diplomatic engagement. There's also cross-cultural change. There's a lot of things we don't really do anymore that should be invested in and that really empower local actors to lead, and those solutions. Ultimately the Afghans have to lead in terms of what their country looks like and what a sustainable solution looks like. And we need to get out of this idea that we can just dictate the outcome by drawing lines or putting certain actors in power.

HANNAH: If we are going to end our empire like you suggested, do we just let the people of the world sort out themselves where their borders will be and what flag they'll fly? And does that look bloodier or less bloody than the current arrangement?

KIZER: Well, I think one of the things is when the U.S. withdraws from a place like Afghanistan, everyone in this town acts like that's the end of all U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. Once we withdraw militarily, there's no other role for the United States. As with your question, I think the one thing to think about is how can the United States play a facilitator role in all these things? How can we actually not dictate, but lift up the desires and needs of different people in these countries to ensure they have a seat at the table, that they are in a position to negotiate and secure their own interests? That's not going to be perfect by any means. We have to start thinking about how we can build transnational, people-driven movements.

HANNAH: Kate Kizer, one of your progressive principles of foreign policy you lay out has a lot to do with a human-centered economy. What does that look like?

KIZER: A big part of it is ending U.S. corporate profiteering off of human suffering. One big reference, obviously, is the military industrial complex, where you have these defense contractors and arms manufacturers who have been very good at putting their different manufacturing plants and bases throughout the country. They're essentially untouchable because every politician then has them in their district, and they have to protect them. And so, no money can leave the Pentagon. There's a whole jobs argument that if you don't sell this tranche of weapons to this government, you're missing out on 200 jobs, or something like that. And research has shown that arms manufacturing jobs aren’t sustainable. You can actually get two more jobs out of health care or green technology than you can from arms manufacturing. So, it's about transitioning our economy to serve the needs of actual people. It's part of what a just transition would be when you have military bases closing and a lot of communities that often swallow up the community because that was the main source of jobs. But what if we're sort of buying all these weapons and giving all of these handouts—nearly half of the Pentagon's budget goes to defense contractors, which then goes to CEO bonuses—then giving that money to invest in green technology and infrastructure? That would create tons of sustainable jobs. What if we were actually investing in child care and human health care? Whether that's Medicare for All or universal child care or paying our teachers and home health care workers—which we have huge needs for—that can train and build the next generation of engineers and scientists we need to compete in a global economy. That's what that is. It's about having a social transition as much as an economic transition.

HANNAH: Democracy promotion rests on the idea that these liberal values are universal and that the United States can help instill and implement and spread these values to other nations. But all too often in U.S. history, America has done this through military force or economic coercion. I want to ask you about other, non-liberal values that are maybe afforded or supplied by other forms of government, a sense of belonging, or a sense of economic security, rather than opportunity, for example. Does the progressive vision for foreign policy allow for this? Does it allow for, essentially, autocrats to maintain regressive policies in the name of championing other values?

KIZER: I mean, I think one thing you said that's really important, in all those examples, is it's often coercive. We haven't really tried holistically to fully reorient U.S. national security-making around the idea that our values are in the front seat with us, that we're not necessarily going to compromise our values for the sake of security relationships. There's been a lot of bellyaching lately about U.S. credibility. And with Syria, it’s not a withdrawal. I don't know what we should call it.

HANNAH: Repositioning of troops?

KIZER: In all of that rhetoric, we miss a key piece—what credibility do we have to people on the ground in these countries when we're supporting military dictatorships in the name of security? We're then supporting authoritarian regimes like the Sisi regime in Egypt who actively jails and tortures thousands of prisoners and executes many of them.

Interlude featuring archival audio

KIZER: That certainly isn’t inclusive, stable, or a democracy. Similarly, it's not just Trump. It's the Obama administration in Egypt in particular, not calling a coup in 2013, and it stood rather silently as two thousand people were slaughtered by the military because we had built this military and the idea that this regime shared our values of countering terrorism. But actually, all of these actions by these governments often reinforce the problems that exist. I think when I talk about values, I talk about a consistent set of principles we are actively deriving policy from, and we’re thinking about, “Is this policy actually centering and meeting the needs of local people on the ground? Have we actually engaged with not only the government but civil society, youth activists, women activists in this country to fully understand what they actually want versus what the government is telling us their people want?”

HANNAH: Are our values then a departure point for our foreign policy, or are they a destination? Are we starting with our values or ending with our values?

KIZER: I think it's both. I think it's: what is the world we actually want to see? And then what are the steps we can take in each of our engagements abroad—whether that's with government or local actors or civil society or multilateral institutions—to work towards making that world a reality? And I think—you know, I'm not going to say this is going to be easy. What I'm talking about is multi-generational change.

HANNAH: Can you tell us some of the things that are keeping that from happening?

KIZER: Part of it is this narrative that's been constructed, particularly since 9/11, in which there’s an “us versus them” mentality. Most things in national security rely on the dehumanization of others, particularly in the so-called war on terror. And one great example from the post-9/11 wars is a lot of Americans think—if they're even aware—we're bombing like seventeen other countries right now. There's no transparency over who we are actually killing, but there's not a lot of attention to the fact that the Department of Homeland Security and the NSA got massive powers after 9/11 to surveil and militarize our own society. Another example of this is a lot of the equipment police forces use in the United States now come directly from the DOD through the 1033 program, where the Pentagon is transferring military grade weapons to police forces. And those forces are incentivized to use that equipment. That's why you see tanks and machine guns on the streets of Ferguson when there's unrest versus community policing and other strategies that could actually address the root drivers of conflict.

HANNAH: So you're saying we should be more focused on domestic issues than foreign affairs, or…?

KIZER: Well, I think the first step is we have to see the parallels between the two situations.

Interlude featuring archival audio

KIZER: It's not only that the Pentagon transferring these weapons to police forces here at home is militarizing our communities. It's also that the United States is actively fueling conflict in this part of the world by sending so many weapons to the Middle East that different groups then get their hands on. You see this not only with ISIS, but in Yemen, UAE, and Saudi-backed militias who are ostensibly fighting on our side but then fighting the government we say we're supporting. I think one of the things progressives are very keen to do is address the United States’ role in fueling violence around the world, wherever that happens. That, again, breaks down the domestic and foreign policy divide, because these things aren't happening in vacuums. They actively reinforce each other, because how we're operating abroad is mirrored back at home and vice versa.

HANNAH: A lot of Democrats are concerned there's a national security gap and that if they're not perceived as tough on America's enemies and tough on national security, they won't be viable candidates. Are you telling them they should not be concerned with being seen as tough on foreign policy, on national security?

KIZER: Well, I think the idea that national security can only be seen based on being tough is such a patriarchal view of what security is. It's not about the actual ways we can build safety for the United States as well as other countries around the world, and the cross-cutting challenges Americans face—that are certainly physical, but are also economic, social, and rooted in so many other things the military can never solve. And I think for so long, there has been a fear of looking weak on national security. Democrats have really bought into Republican talking points on this, and by doing that, what they then offer is this Republican lite vision of what national security is. And it is my assessment that if someone's going to choose a Republican, they're going to go for the real Republican, not Republican lite. And I think what Democrats are failing to do—which they used to do on domestic policy, but I think we've really seen a change in this on the domestic side—is, on national security, Democrats are offering a bold alternative to how the world could actually be. What is the Democratic vision of how the United States should engage in a world? And I think when we articulate that—when some candidates and politicians articulate that—it gets people really excited because it doesn't mean isolationism. It doesn't mean bombing black and brown people to secure ourselves. It means lifting up others, leading with our values, actually correcting the mistakes of the past, and not being afraid to say, “We've made a mistake, and here's how we can change that.”

HANNAH: I know Win Without War, as a 501(c)(3) organization, doesn't endorse anybody. But for you personally, which if any of the Democratic candidates are embodying this progressive vision for foreign policy?

KIZER: You know, in my personal opinion, I think Bernie Sanders is someone who, for all the absence of foreign policy in 2016, has really clearly staked out a progressive vision of foreign policy. I think he very much understands what progressive internationalism is, the need to build international transnational movements to see change, and that we need to start in the United States. But we can't stop there. We have to change the international system to work for everyone. I think Elizabeth Warren is also progressive. I think she comes at it from a different view. It's often still rooted in American exceptionalism. When she talks about the costs of the post-9/11 wars, for example, she's talking about the cost to Americans—to American treasure and blood. But she often doesn't mention the hundreds of thousands that were killed as a result of those wars. Not to say that she doesn't understand those costs and that she hasn't referenced it elsewhere. But I think that's one of the key differences—her stump speeches. She's not talking about what the impact of her policies are abroad, whereas Bernie Sanders often does articulate that.

Interlude featuring archival audio

HANNAH: You, Kate Kizer, get five minutes in a room with a Democratic nominee to give them as much advice as you can in that little five minute period. What's the thing you're going to focus on?

KIZER: I'm going to focus on advocating for them to focus on breaking down institutional interests that keep the status quo in place. Ending the monopoly of national security as only military power and refocusing U.S. security on human security for everyone around the world. And I really think that focusing on the climate crisis as a key driver of that reformation is one place to start, because the majority of Democratic voters at least believe it is the national security crisis of our time.

HANNAH: This has been another episode of None of the Above. This is Mark Hannah. And I want to thank Kate Kizer, our guest, for joining us in the studio today. If you like what you heard and want to hear more episodes like this one, you can find them on our website, noneoftheabovepodcast.org or anywhere else you get podcasts. Please rate and review us. It means a lot. And if you have any ideas for a topic you'd like us to tackle or a guest you'd like to hear, shoot us a note at info@egfound.org. Catch you next time.

(END.)

More Episodes