David McReynolds on Foreign Policy

Eliminate most foreign aid; it’s only for disasters

Aid should be granted to countries when extraordinary circumstances cause disaster and threaten civilian lives.
Would Eliminate Funding for Colombia; Egypt; Israel; Kosovo province; Mexico; North Korea; Russia; Turkey.
Greatly increase funding for UN Crisis and Humanitarian Aid and UN Peace Keeping Missions

Source: Vote-Smart.org NPAT questionnaire May 2, 2000

Oppose IMF, World Bank, and WTO

We oppose the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization as instruments of oppression throughout the world.

We call for the reassessment of all international trade negotiations in light of workers’, farmers’, consumers’, and environmental interests.

Source: Socialist Party Platform Jan 1, 2000

East Timor: force Indonesia to control their militias

The US has no interests in East Timor - but it does have substantial interests in Indonesia, which accounts for the close cooperation between the US and Indonesia military up to and after the UN vote. I have stayed away from the discussion of whether or not to intervene with a UN force because the chances were too good that everyone would be dead before that could be achieved (for one thing, without Indonesia’s cooperation, China would almost certainly have vetoed any UN action). My own position has been and remains that a really powerful position by the US (and Britain, Japan and Australia) would force Indonesia to control the “militias” which have clearly been permitted to operate by the Indonesian military. And this seems to be happening. Source: Reflections on East Timor Sep 14, 1999

Create non-US-based international peacekeepers

The military-industrial complex pervades every state, virtually every university, dominates the media through indirect corporate links, and involves the trade unions because of military jobs. If ever there was a time for a peace movement to strike at the military, root and branch, it is now, when the US has no foreign enemies to threaten it, and when the chance might exist to create some legitimate international forms of peace-keeping that were not linked to US or West European economic interests. Source: WRL Retirement Dinner May 1, 1999

Treat China and others with “radical humanism”

A peace movement for the next century needs to be based the willingness to look for nonviolent solutions rather than relying on the “good will” of American military interventions. it needs to examine the economic factors that drive American foreign policy and so often corrupt good intentions. And it needs to reach out, with respect, to friends in Japan, China, India, Africa, Europe, and Central and Latin America. Perhaps I’d call it a “radical humanism”. Or a willingness to risk optomism in the face of all the evidence the situation may be hopeless. We need to remember that when World War II ended there was agreement, when the United Nations was founded, that arms control was not the goal toward which we would march - it was total disarmament, nuclear and conventional. Source: Article: “100 Years of Struggling for Peace” by McReynolds Jan 1, 1999

Click here for definitions & background information on Foreign Policy. Click here for policy papers on Foreign Policy. Click here for SenateMatch answers by David McReynolds. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Foreign Policy in The Forum.
*Other candidates on Foreign Policy:*		*David McReynolds on other issues:*
*NY Gubernatorial:* George Pataki *NY Senatorial:* Abe Hirschfeld Al D'Amato Charles Schumer Hillary Clinton Howard Mills Marilyn O'Grady Michael Benjamin Pat Moynihan Rudy Giuliani *Presidential:* George W. Bush (Republican for President) V.P.Dick Cheney (Republican for V.P.) Sen.John Kerry (Democratic nominee for Pres.) Sen.John Edwards (Democratic nominee for V.P.) Ralph Nader (Reform nominee for Pres.) Peter Camejo (Reform nominee for V.P.) David Cobb (Green nominee for Pres.) Michael Badnarik (Libertarian nominee for Pres.) Michael Peroutka (Constitution nominee for Pres.)	*2004 Senate Races:* (AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes (AR)Holt v.Lincoln (AZ)McCain v.Starky (CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray (CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta (CT)Dodd v.Orchulli (FL)Castor v.Martinez (GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley (IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop (IL)Obama v.Keyes (IN)Bayh v.Scott (KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo (LA)John v.Vitter v.Kennedy (MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin (MO)Bond v.Farmer (NC)Bowles v.Burr (ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig (NH)Granny D v.Gregg (NV)Reid v.Ziser (NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds (OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich (OK)Carson v.Coburn (OR)Wyden v.King (PA)Hoeffel v.Specter v.Summers (SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum (SD)Daschle v.Thune (UT)Bennett v.Van Dam (VT)Leahy v.McMullen (WA)Murray v.Nethercutt (WI)Feingold v.Michels	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) HouseMatch Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes