Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016/Russia

Jill Stein announced her presidential run on June 22, 2015.^[1]

Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. It may also contain neutrality issues.

Jill Stein
Green presidential nominee
Running mate: Ajamu Baraka

Election
Green Party National Convention • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state • Ballot access

On the issues
Domestic affairs • Economic affairs and government regulations • Foreign affairs and national security

Other candidates
Hillary Clinton (D) • Donald Trump (R) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates

Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016

This page was current as of the 2016 election.

2016 Presidential Election
Date: November 8, 2016

Candidates
Winner: Donald Trump (R)
Hillary Clinton (D) • Jill Stein (G) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates

Election coverage
Important dates • Nominating process • Ballotpedia's 2016 Battleground Poll • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state • Ratings and scorecards

Ballotpedia's presidential election coverage
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016

Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
Click here to learn more.

This page was current as of the 2016 election.

See below what the 2016 candidates and their respective party platforms said about Russia.

Interested in reading more about the 2016 candidates' stances on issues related to Russia? Ballotpedia also covered what the candidates said about foreign affairs, national security, cybersecurity, ISIS, and Syrian refugees.

OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS
Although Hillary Clinton (D) initiated a "reset" of relations with Russia when she served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, she said that the dynamic changed when Vladimir Putin returned to the presidency in Russia in 2012. She said that Russia wanted "to rewrite the map of Europe" and that its "aggression" caused civilian casualties in Syria. She also asserted that Russia attempted to influence the presidential election to Donald Trump's benefit.
Donald Trump (R) said that he would like to work with Russia to fight ISIS and praised the country's military intervention in Syria. Asked to comment on Russian military aggression, Trump said that he would not automatically defend Baltic members of NATO against Russia. Instead, he said he would review whether those nations "have fulfilled their obligations to us." He also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin was more of a leader than President Barack Obama.
Jill Stein (G) said that she viewed Russians "not as enemies to conquer or resources to exploit, but as members of the global community whom we must deal with." She recommended that the U.S. "encourage Ukraine to be neutral" so that Russia would not "feel under attack."
Gary Johnson (L) argued against U.S. engagement to combat Russian military intervention in Ukraine or any other eastern European or Baltic state. He also said that the U.S. should ally with Russia to address the crisis in Aleppo, Syria.

Democratic candidate

Hillary Clinton

During the second presidential primary debate on October 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton said that Russia was involved in the WikiLeaks release of emails allegedly obtain from the account of her campaign manager, John Podesta. She added that Russia was directing the hacks to benefit Donald Trump's campaign. "[O]ur intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information, we don't even know if it's accurate information, and then they put it out. We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election. And believe me, they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump. Now, maybe because he has praised Putin, maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do, maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow, I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers. And we should demand that Donald release all of his tax returns so that people can see what are the entanglements and the financial relationships that he has with the Russians and other foreign powers," Clinton said.^[2]
- Clinton also said during the debate that civilians were "suffering in this catastrophic war [Syrian Civil War] largely...because of Russian aggression."^[2]
- She said that it was "fine" to cooperate whenever possible with Russia, but warned against the "the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia." She continued, "Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria. And they've also decided who they want to see become president of the United States, too, and it's not me. I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."^[2]

On September 5, 2016, Clinton compared the alleged Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee to "Watergate only now in cyber time." She added that Trump's relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin "raises even more serious questions about Trump" and that it was "interesting that this activity has happened around the time Trump became the nominee."^[3]

In August 2016, the Associated Press published a profile of Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russia relations while secretary of state, chronicling her success in pushing for a nuclear arms control treaty and missteps with Syria. “Russia outmaneuvered her in negotiations over a complicated Syria peace plan, dealing her what was arguably her worst diplomatic defeat. While Clinton hailed it as a triumph, the war only escalated. And while her aides still insist she came out on top, the blueprint effectively gave Syria's Moscow-backed president, Bashar Assad, a veto over any transition government, hampering all mediation efforts still,” the Associated Press reported.^[4]

During the ninth Democratic debate on April 14, 2016, Clinton was asked about the United States’ involvement with NATO. She said, “I support our continuing involvement in NATO. And it is important to ask for our NATO allies to pay more of the cost. There is a requirement that they should be doing so, and I believe that needs to be enforced. ... I will stay in NATO, and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan. Most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They came to our rallying defense after 9/11. That meant a lot. And, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let’s not forget what’s really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we’ve seen what they’ve done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia’s aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.”^[5]

At the third Democratic primary debate on December 19, 2015, Hillary Clinton discussed her support for establishing a no-fly zone in Syria: “[O]ne of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS. And of course, it has to be de-conflicted with the Russians, who are also flying in that space. I'm hoping that because of the very recent announcement of the agreement at the Security Council, which embodies actually an agreement that I negotiated back in Geneva in June of 2012, we're going to get a diplomatic effort in Syria to begin to try to make a transition. A no-fly zone would prevent the outflow of refugees and give us a chance to have some safe spaces.”^[6]
Read more of Hillary Clinton's public statements on Russia.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on Russia

“	Russia is engaging in destabilizing actions along its borders, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and attempting to recreate spheres of influence that undermine American interests. It is also propping up the Assad regime in Syria, which is brutally attacking its own citizens. Donald Trump would overturn more than 50 years of American foreign policy by abandoning NATO partners—countries who help us fight terrorism every day—and embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin instead. We believe in strong alliances and will deter Russian aggression, build European resilience, and protect our NATO allies. We will make it clear to Putin that we are prepared to cooperate with him when it is in our interest—as we did on reducing nuclear stockpiles, ensuring Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon, sanctioning North Korea, and resupplying our troops in Afghanistan—but we will not hesitate to stand up to Russian aggression. We will also continue to stand by the Russian people and push the government to respect the fundamental rights of its citizens.^[7]	”
—2016 Democratic Platform^[8]

Republican candidate

Donald Trump

During the second presidential debate on October 9, 2016, Donald Trump rejected Hillary Clinton's assertion that Russia had been involved with a WikiLeaks release of her campaign chair's email archive and that he wanted to do business with the country. Trump said, "I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin. But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know — I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia."^[9]

At a "commander-in-chief" forum on NBC News in September 2016, Trump discussed Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, “[H]e does have an 82 percent approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here. … I think I’d be able to get along with him. … If he says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him. I’ve already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, oh, isn’t that a terrible thing — the man has very strong control over a country. … Now, it’s a very different system, and I don’t happen to like the system. But certainly, in that system, he’s been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”^[10]

An August 2016 article in The New York Times reported that Paul Manafort, Trump's then-campaign chair, received millions of dollars worth of cash payments from the party of the former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, while acting as an adviser in Ukraine. The paper wrote, "Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials."^[11] Manafort denied the allegations, saying, "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical."^[12] Manafort resigned from the campaign on August 19, 2016, shortly after Kellyanne Conway become campaign manager.^[13]

During an interview that aired on ABC News on July 31, 2016, Trump said that he was not concerned with Putin entering Ukraine. “He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.” When host George Stephanopoulos countered that Russia had already entered Ukraine, Trump said, “OK― well, he’s there in a certain way. But I’m not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he’s going away. He take ― takes Crimea.” He added that he had heard that Crimeans “would rather be with Russia than where they were.”^[14]

Trump encouraged Russia and other countries to locate emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private email server on July 27, 2016, following the release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. He said, "I have nothing to do with Putin. I've never spoken to him. I don't know anything about him other than he will respect me. He doesn't respect our president. And if it is Russia -- which it's probably not, nobody knows who it is -- but if it is Russia, it's really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country, when they would hack into a major party and get everything. But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."^[15] The following day, Trump said that he was "being sarcastic."^[16]
Read more of Donald Trump's public statements on Russia.

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on Russia

“

For the people of Russia, we affirm our respect and our determination to maintain a friendship beyond the reach of those who wish to divide us. We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more. We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

We urge greater attention in U.S. diplomacy, trade, and strategic planning, to the nations of Eurasia, formerly parts of the Soviet Empire. Caught between their two authoritarian neighbors, their path toward democratic institutions has been uncertain. We urge our government and our allies to work toward the integration of the Central Asian republics into the global economy through foreign investment, which can bring with it market and political reforms and a firmer establishment of the rule of law. Those developments will not only improve the living conditions throughout that vast area but are likely to reduce the lure of the radical ideologies that already threaten the region.

...

Cyber attacks against our businesses, institutions, and the government itself have become almost routine. They will continue until the world understands that an attack will not be tolerated — that we are prepared to respond in kind and in greater magnitude. Despite their promises to the contrary, Russia and China see cyber operations as a part of a warfare strategy during peacetime. Our response should be to cause diplomatic, financial, and legal pain, curtailing visas for guilty parties, freezing their assets, and pursuing criminal actions against them. We should seek to weaken control over the internet by regimes that engage in cyber crimes. We must stop playing defense and go on offense to avoid the cyber-equivalent of Pearl Harbor.^[7]

”

—2016 Republican Platform^[17]

Green candidate

Jill Stein

Jill Stein said in an interview on October 19, 2016, that the United States was "on the verge of nuclear war right now" with Russia. She continued, "[F]rom Russia’s point of view, they’ve been encroached upon, there have been missiles that have surrounded them now. And this has been going on for years. Now there are war games going on and exercises, and our negotiations have absolutely broken down. And both sides are moving their missiles in for exchange. So to my mind, this is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids." She advocated engaging Russia on nuclear disarmament and said that "it’s us who’s been slamming the door on nuclear disarmament progress."^[18]

In an interview on October 12, 2016, Stein had said that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy regarding Russia was more dangerous than Donald Trump's. "It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone. We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger [sic] alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been. Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria. I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies. On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia," she said.^[19]
Commenting on Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Stein had stated in an interview published on September 14, 2016, "Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over. Not that the other guy was some model of democracy. But the one they put in — with the support of the US and the CIA in this coup in Ukraine — that has not been a solution. Regime change is something we need to be very careful about. And this is a highly inflammatory regime change with a nuclear armed power next door. So I’m saying: Let’s just stop pretending there are good guys here and bad guys here. These are complicated situations. Yeah, Russia is doing lots of human rights abuse, but you know what? So are we.”^[20]

On September 10, 2016, Stein had written an open letter to Yevgeniya Chirikova and Nadezhda Kutepova, two Russian environmentalists who were critical of her policy positions on Russia.^[21]
- Stein said that she had been "grossly misrepresented" by the media. "There is a growing tendency in American politics to label critics of the established order as agents of Russia working against the United States. For example, when WikiLeaks exposed massive corruption at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, high-ranking Democratic Party officials and their supporters in the media began attacking WikiLeaks as an alleged agent of Russia, despite their inability to produce any hard evidence to support this claim. This tactic of smearing critics as Russian agents is the mirror image of the Putin administration’s tactic of labeling Putin critics as agents of the West. It is reminiscent of the shameful history of Russia-baiting attacks against political opposition leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.," Stein said.
- Stein added that she did not confront Putin about human rights violations when she visited Moscow in 2015 because there was no interpreter present. She continued, "Clinton’s anti-Russian maneuvering will surely be used by Putin to justify further attacks on his political opponents as agents of the West, and Republican Donald Trump seems as uninterested in human rights as he is in environmental progress. What the Greens offer is completely different: we see Russians not as enemies to conquer or resources to exploit, but as members of the global community whom we must deal with. We seek principled collaboration to develop potential partnerships to create a world that works for all of us."
Read more of Jill Stein's public statements on Russia.

The 2016 Green Party Platform on foreign affairs

“

At the start of a new century, we stand poised between the geopolitical conflict of East versus West; a future marked by the aftermath of the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001; the dangers of global terrorism; the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan followed by the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq; the escalation of conflict in the Middle East; and the continued research and development of nuclear weapons and the stockpiling of bio-chemical weapons.

In the area of trade, third- and fourth-world economies and resources are being ravaged and our own economy and job security undermined by global corporatization, which concentrates greater power in the hands of fewer interests who are unaccountable to the vast majority of the world's people.

As we overcome continued conflicts and violence, we realize the difficulties inherent in encouraging democracy and of advancing the cause of peace. We face a more complex set of challenges in how our nation defines its national security. Greens support sustainable development and social and economic justice across the globe. Reducing militarism and reliance on arms policies is the key to progress toward collective security.

1. Foreign Policy—Peace and Disarmament

As one of the initiators and primary authors of the United Nations Charter, the United States is obligated to conform to the stipulations of the U.S. Constitution, which identifies all such agreements as treaties that hold the authority of U.S. law. The U.S. government is pledged to abide by its principles and guidelines in the conduct of foreign relations and affairs.

We recognize our government's obligation to take disputes with other nations or foreign bodies to the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly forum for negotiation and resolution. The U.N. and international laws, treaties and conventions that the U.S. has signed are the framework that controls U.S. military actions abroad.

The U.S. must recognize the sovereignty of nation-states and their right of self-determination.

We recognize and support the right of the U.N. to intervene in a nation-state engaged in genocidal acts or in its persistent violation and denial of the human rights of an ethnic or religious group within its boundaries, and the right to protect the victims of such acts.

The U.S. is obligated to render military assistance or service under U.N. command to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions.

The U.S. must recognize and abide by the authority of the U.N. General Assembly to act in a crisis situation by passing a resolution under the Uniting for Peace Procedure when the U.N. Security Council is stalemated by vetoes.

We seek the permanent repeal of the veto power enjoyed by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

We urge our government to sign the International Criminal Court agreement and respect the authority of that institution.

Our government does not have the right to justify preemptive invasion of another country on the grounds that the other country harbors, trains, equips and funds a terrorist cell.

Our government should establish a policy to abolish nuclear weapons. It should set the conditions and schedule for fulfilling that goal by taking the following steps: Declare a no-first-strike policy. Declare a no-pre-emptive strike policy. Declare that the U.S. will never threaten or use a nuclear weapon, regardless of size, on a non-nuclear nation. Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Our pledge to end testing will open the way for non-nuclear states to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has been held up by our refusal to sign the CTBT. Honor the conditions set in the NPT for nuclear nations. Reverse our withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and honor its stipulations. End the research, testing and stockpiling of all nuclear weapons of any size. Dismantle all nuclear warheads from their missiles. We urge our government to sign the Toronto treaty banning the production, stockpiling, use and sale of land mines, and assist other nations in unearthing and disabling land mines buried in their lands.

We urge our government to end all stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons and all research, use, and sale of such weapons; and sign the convention that will establish the decrease and inspection of all nations' stockpiles of such weapons, which the U.S. abandoned.

The U.S. must allow foreign teams to visit the U.S. for verification purposes at least annually.

Our defense budget has increased out of all proportion to any military threat to the United States, and to our domestic social, economic and environmental needs. The United States government must reduce our defense budget to half of its current size. The 2012 defense budget exceeded $700 billion, and that does not take into account military expenditures not placed under the defense budget.

The U.S. has over 700 foreign military bases. We urge our government to phase out all bases not specifically functioning under a U.N. resolution to keep peace and bring home our troops stationed abroad, except for the military assigned to protect a U.S. embassy. Many of these bases are small and can be closed immediately. We advocate further reductions in U.S. foreign military bases at a rate of closure of 1/4 to 1/5 of their numbers every year.

Close the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas, in Ft. Benning, Georgia.

The U.S. is the largest arms seller and dealer in the world. We urge our government to prohibit all arms sales to foreign nations and likewise prohibit grants to impoverished and undemocratic nations unless the money is targeted on domestic, non-military needs. In addition, grants to other nations may not be used to release their own funds for military purposes.

The U.S. must not be a conduit for defense contractors to market their products abroad and must shift our export market from arms to peaceful technology, industrial and agricultural products, and education.

The U.S. must prohibit all covert actions used to influence, de-stabilize or usurp the governments of other nations, and likewise prohibit the assassination of, or assistance in any form for the assassination of, foreign government officials.

We must build on the Earth Charter that came out of the 1992 U.N. environmental Earth Summit. New definitions of what constitutes real security between nations must be debated and adopted by the foreign policy community.

2. A Real Road to Peace in the Middle East

The Green Party of the United States recognizes that our greatest contribution to peace in the Middle East will come through our impact on U.S. policy in the region.

Our commitments to ecological wisdom, social justice, grass-roots democracy, and non-violence compel us to oppose U.S. government support for "friendly" regimes in the region when those regimes violate human rights, international law, and existing treaties. We call on congressional intelligence committees to conduct comprehensive public hearings on the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction by all states in the region.

U.S. policy should support the removal and/or destruction of all such weapons wherever they are found there.

Iran

The Green Party supports the "joint comprehensive plan of action" signed in July 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 (five permanent members of the UN Security Council: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States plus Germany), and the European Union, which confirms Iran's status as a zone free of nuclear weapons. According to the United States National Intelligence Estimate, Iran halted an alleged active nuclear weapons program in the Fall of 2003. Iran, which has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, has consistently called for a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East.

The "joint comprehensive plan of action" provides that in return for Iran upholding its agreements to rid itself of nuclear material as verified by inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), current economic sanctions by the US, European Union and UN Security Council will be lifted. The Green Party supports the swift elimination of these economic sanctions on Iran and looks to the normalization of relations between Iran and the United States. In keeping with UN resolutions call for a nuclear-free Middle East, the Green Party also calls on Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East with at least 200 nuclear warheads, to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and sign on to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

Our Green values oblige us to support popular movements for peace and demilitarization in Israel-Palestine, especially those that reach across the lines of conflict to engage both Palestinians and Israelis of good will.

We reaffirm the right of self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis, which precludes the self-determination of one at the expense of the other. We recognize the historical and contemporary cultural diversity of Israeli-Palestinian society, including the religious heritage of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. This is a significant part of the rich cultural legacy of all these peoples and it must be respected. To ensure this, we support equality before international law rather than appeals to religious faith as the fair basis on which claims to the land of Palestine-Israel are resolved.

We recognize that Jewish insecurity and fear of non-Jews is understandable in light of Jewish history of horrific oppression in Europe. However, we oppose as both discriminatory and ultimately self-defeating the position that Jews would be fundamentally threatened by the implementation of full rights to Palestinian-Israelis and Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their homes. As U.S. Greens, we refuse to impose our views on the people of the region. Still, we would turn the U.S. government towards a new policy, which itself recognizes the equality, humanity, and civil rights of Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all others who live in the region, and which seeks to build confidence in prospects for secular democracy.

We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel. We acknowledge the significant challenges of equity and restitution this policy would encounter and call on the U.S. government to make resolution of these challenges a central goal of our diplomacy in the region.

We reject U.S. unbalanced financial and military support of Israel while Israel occupies Palestinian lands and maintains an apartheid-like system in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens. Therefore, we call on the U.S. President and Congress to suspend all military and foreign aid, including loans and grants, to Israel until Israel withdraws from the Occupied Territories, dismantles the separation wall in the Occupied West Bank including East Jerusalem, ends its siege of Gaza and its apartheid-like system both within the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in Israel toward its non-Jewish citizens.

We also reject U.S. political support for Israel and demand that the U.S. government end its veto of Security Council resolutions pertaining to Israel. We urge our government to join with the U.N. to secure Israel's complete withdrawal to the 1967 boundaries and its compliance with international law.

We support a much stronger and supportive U.S. position with respect to all United Nations, European Union, and Arab League initiatives that seek a negotiated peace. We call for an immediate U.N.-sponsored, multinational peacekeeping and protection force in the Palestinian territories with the mandate to initiate a conflict-resolution commission.

We call on the foreign and military affairs committees of the U.S. House and Senate to conduct full hearings on the status of human rights and war crimes in Palestine-Israel, especially violations committed during Israel's 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza ("Operation Cast Lead") as documented in the 2009 "UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict"("The Goldstone Report") authorized by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

We recognize that despite decades of continuous diplomatic attempts by the international community, it has failed to bring about Israel's compliance with international law or respect for basic Palestinian human rights; and that, despite abundant condemnation of Israel's policies by the UN, International Court of Justice, and all relevant international conventions, the international community of nations has failed to stop Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights in Israel and the OPT, while Israeli crimes continue with impunity. We recall that ending institutionalized racism (apartheid) in South Africa demanded an unusual, cooperative action by the entire international community in the form of a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against apartheid South Africa, and that BDS can become the most effective nonviolent means for achieving justice and genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis, and for the region, through concerted international pressure as applied to apartheid South Africa; and that Palestinian resistance to ongoing dispossession has mainly been nonviolent, including its most basic form—remaining in their homes, on their land; and that while Palestinian armed resistance is legitimate under international law when directed at non-civilian targets, we believe that only nonviolent resistance will maintain the humanity of Palestinian society, elicit the greatest solidarity from others, and maximize the chance for future reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. However, we also recognize that our appeal to Palestinians to continue to resist nonviolently in the face of ongoing existential threats from Israel is hypocritical unless accompanied by substantial acts of international support. We recall that in 2005, Palestinian Civil Society appealed to the international community to support a BDS campaign against Israel, and that in response the Green Party of the US endorsed this BDS campaign in 2005. Therefore, we support the implementation of boycott and divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era, which includes pressuring our government to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel; and we support maintaining these nonviolent punitive measures until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people's inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by Ending its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands and dismantling the Wall in the West Bank Recognizing the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194. We recognize that international opinion has been committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet, we view the two-state solution as neither democratic nor viable in the face of international law, material conditions and "facts on the ground" that now exist in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Given this reality, we support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital. We encourage a new U.S. diplomatic initiative to begin the long process of negotiation, laying the groundwork for such a single-state constitution.

We recognize that such a state might take many forms and that the eventual model chosen must be decided by the peoples themselves. We also acknowledge the enormous hostilities that now exist between the two peoples, but history tells us that these are not insurmountable among people genuinely seeking peace.

As an integral part of peace negotiations and the transition to peaceful democracy, we call for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission whose inaugurating action would be mutual acknowledgement by Israelis and Palestinians that they have the same basic rights, including the right to exist in the same, secure place.

3. Foreign Policy—Trade

We urge our government to do the following:

Re-formulate all international trade relations and commerce as currently upheld by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) to protect the labor, human rights, economy, environment and domestic industry of partner and recipient nations so that the growth of local industry and agriculture has the advantage over foreign corporate domination. The U.S. government should call for replacing the WTO, IMF, and World Bank with new institutions that are democratic, transparent, and accountable to the citizens of all nations.

While the IMF and World Bank still exist in their current forms, re-structure the rules of performance of the IMF/WB to end the debts of recipient nations, prohibit the use of IMF/WB loans to impose structural adjustment programs that emphasize debt service and export-led development at the expense of social needs, and to install strict standards in the IMF/WB that control the use of grants or loans to prevent fraud, misuse, and subversion of funds by recipient governments.

Re-write the rules for investment of corporate capital in projects operated under the IMF/WB to guarantee the rights of the citizens of the nations receiving the investment and their right to public ownership and control of their own resources.

Mandate and protect labor's right to organize, create unions and negotiate with management in all countries receiving U.S. investment, and require U.S. corporations that operate in other countries to adhere to the core labor standards established by the International Labor Organization (ILO) Declaration of the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Legislate and enable oversight by an independent agency or a labor union to verify that foreign workers' rights are protected.

At home, secure the rights of our states to establish stricter standards for health, safety, and for the environment than those of our national government, and to protect themselves against substandard, imported goods.

Secure the right of states and municipalities to refuse to invest in foreign businesses that do not abide by their standards for imported goods, fair trade, and environmental protection. Prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding or evading payment of their taxes by banking abroad or locating their charters offshore.

Every day over $1 trillion dollars circles the globe in currency trade—wreaking havoc on low-economy nations —without obligation to sustainable investment. We seek to restrict the unfettered flow of capital and currency trade, and levy the Tobin tax of .05% on cross border currency transactions. [See section E. 2. Fair Taxation in chapter IV]

We support the funding and expansion of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in their missions to educate and train people of less developed nations in initiating local business and economic development, and in providing health care and family planning.

Under the agency of the United Nations, we demand that our government renew and initiate government funding and support for family planning, contraception, and abortion in all countries that request it.

We reject the U.S. government's economic blockade of Cuba. We ask the U.S. Congress to lift the embargo and restore normal diplomatic relations and respect for national sovereignty, and demand that the U.S. government end its veto of U.N. resolutions pertaining to Cuba.

4. Human Rights

We propose the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

The rights established by this Constitution and the laws of the United States of America are exclusively the rights of living, breathing humans, citizens of this country or residing therein. No corporation or other type of association or organization can have the status of a "legal person" and thus cannot derive rights from such status.

These organizations have no permanent, constitutionally protected rights, though they may have such powers or immunities as are explicitly granted to them by legislative actions at either the federal or the state level. These powers or immunities may be modified or removed by later action of the same legislative bodies. In no case can these powers or immunities override the constitutionally protected rights of human beings.

5. Women's Rights

The Green Party makes a strong and urgent call for U.S. passage of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly and ratified by 173 countries. It is also known as the Women's Convention, the Women's Bill of Rights, and an International Bill of Rights for Women. The United States is one of a very few countries and the only industrialized nation that has not ratified it. The illegal international trafficking in humans, primarily women, has reached staggering numbers and consequences around the world. The Green Party supports the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking In Persons, Especially Women and Children, which supplements the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime adopted by the UN General Assembly in November 2000 as an important tool to facilitate international cooperation. The U.S. and 80 other countries signed the Protocol in December 2000 and by doing so have made a commitment to criminalize trafficking and to protect its many victims. We call for effective collaborative relationships between sending and receiving countries, including the U.S. We also call for studies analyzing and connecting the role of globalization in trafficking.

6. Puerto Rican Independence

In 1898, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States and has been held by the U.S. in the form of a colony ever since. In response to international pressure, in 1952, the U.S. established the "Free Associated State" status for Puerto Rico but continued to claim that Puerto Rico belongs to, yet is not a part of, the United States. The root of the crisis is the colonial status of Puerto Rico as echoed in the UN Decolonization committee resolution on Puerto Rico adopted on June 22, 2015 which states ñthe condition of political subordination prevents Puerto Rico from taking sovereign decisions to attend to its serious economic and social problems including unemployment, marginalization and poverty (Olga Sanabria Davila, Crisis and Colonialism in Puerto Rico, 10/26/15).

Greens support the right of the people of Puerto Rico to self-determination and independence in conformity with United Nations Resolution 1514(XV) of 1960. Greens call for the release of all Puerto Rican political prisoners, such as Oscar Lopez Rivera, who has been held in U.S. prisons since 1981.

Greens call for the appropriate environmental clean-up and sustainable development of Vieques, the island that was used as a firing range by the U.S. military. Greens oppose recruitment of the youth of Puerto Rico into the U.S. armed forces and their deployment to U.S. wars abroad, and denounce recruitment attempts at educational institutions.

Further, Greens recognize that:

- Puerto Rico's debt is unpayable.

- That in the last 20 years alone, foreign corporations operating in Puerto Rico have reaped over 600 billion dollars in tax free profits, 10 per cent of which would suffice to pay its current otherwise unpayable debt.

- Austerity measures like a "Financial Control Authority," which have proven to exacerbate economic suffering and strip away democratic rights to self-determination, must be opposed.

- The social cost of increasing the sales tax, of reducing workers' pay, education and health services, of eliminating labor rights gained and the dismantling of the retirement system among other recessionary measures, are a detriment to the quality of life of the people of Puerto Rico and to the strategic development of the country's economy.

Thus, these measures are not a solution.

The present fiscal and economic crisis in Puerto Rico is largely due to the United States' colonial power and exploitation in Puerto Rico. Further, although Puerto Rico is a tropical island country seriously being affected by climate change, it is powerless to participate in initiatives and international negotiations to control and mitigate climate change and global warming.

Conclusion

As as a colony of the United States, Puerto Rico's position of political subordination cuts across the problem and independence would break the stalemate and create the possibilities of a solution.

Commitment to grassroots democracy is totally consistent with support for the decolonization of Puerto Rico as colonialism is contrary to democracy. For the country ruled, democracy is non-existent where one country rules over another, even if there are elections every four years to elect local authorities.

Taking into account that in Puerto Rico the United States controls commerce, international relations, immigration, monetary issues, communications, postal matters, defense, labor relations, and others, to truly support democracy in Puerto Rico, its decolonization has to be supported as the first step for the Puerto Rican people to live in a democracy.

7. Kurdistan

The Kurdish people are the largest ethnic group in the world that is without an independent state. As a result, Kurdish people have historically suffered persecution and injustice. The Kurdish people have been besieged to the point of a current humanitarian crisis in towns such as Kobani, Syria. The GPUS expresses solidarity for and affirms the right to self-determination, self-defense, communal autonomy, freedom from persecution, and release of political prisoners for the Kurdish population.^[7]

”

—2016 Green Party Platform^[22]

Libertarian candidate

Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson said on September 8, 2016, that the United States must ally with Russia to address the crisis in Aleppo, Syria. He explained, "Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it's a mess. And I think the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we've aligned ourselves with, when we've supported the opposition, the Free Syrian Army, the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists, and then the fact that we're also supporting the Kurds. And this is — it's just a mess."^[23]

In an interview on PBS on June 6, 2016, Johnson expressed resistance to the United States hypothetically joining NATO in the defense of an eastern European country invaded by Russia. "We need to involve Congress in all of these decisions, which they have abdicated really to the executive, to the military. Right now, Russia is stretched economically. Do we really want to go in and defend Baltic states against Russian aggression? Do we really want to go to war over that? I think it’s wrong to project what you would or wouldn’t do given any situation, because that’s kind of drawing a line in the sand," he said.^[24]

In May 2014, Johnson said that the U.S. should not involve itself in Russia's military intervention in Ukraine because there was "no national security interest...at stake." He analogized, "It would be like Russia getting involved in the affairs of Puerto Rico. They’re not going to do it! We shouldn’t be involved in Ukraine!"^[25]
Read more of Gary Johnson's public statements on foreign affairs.

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on foreign affairs

“	American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.^[7]	”
—2016 Libertarian Party Platform^[26]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 2016 presidential candidates Russia. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016/Russia - Google News

Footnotes

Read what Jill Stein and the 2016 Green Platform said about Russia below.

Stein on Russia

Jill Stein said in an interview on October 19, 2016, that the United States was "on the verge of nuclear war right now" with Russia. She continued, "[F]rom Russia’s point of view, they’ve been encroached upon, there have been missiles that have surrounded them now. And this has been going on for years. Now there are war games going on and exercises, and our negotiations have absolutely broken down. And both sides are moving their missiles in for exchange. So to my mind, this is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids." She advocated engaging Russia on nuclear disarmament and said that "it’s us who’s been slamming the door on nuclear disarmament progress."^[1]

In an interview on October 12, 2016, Stein had said that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy regarding Russia was more dangerous than Donald Trump's. "It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone. We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger [sic] alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been. Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria. I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies. On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia. He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia," she said.^[2]
Commenting on Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Stein had stated in an interview published on September 14, 2016, "Ukraine was historically a part of Russia for quite some period of time, and we all know there was this conversation with Victoria Nuland about planning the coup and who was going to take over. Not that the other guy was some model of democracy. But the one they put in — with the support of the US and the CIA in this coup in Ukraine — that has not been a solution. Regime change is something we need to be very careful about. And this is a highly inflammatory regime change with a nuclear armed power next door. So I’m saying: Let’s just stop pretending there are good guys here and bad guys here. These are complicated situations. Yeah, Russia is doing lots of human rights abuse, but you know what? So are we.”^[3]

On September 10, 2016, Stein had written an open letter to Yevgeniya Chirikova and Nadezhda Kutepova, two Russian environmentalists who were critical of her policy positions on Russia.^[4]
- Stein said that she had been "grossly misrepresented" by the media. "There is a growing tendency in American politics to label critics of the established order as agents of Russia working against the United States. For example, when WikiLeaks exposed massive corruption at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, high-ranking Democratic Party officials and their supporters in the media began attacking WikiLeaks as an alleged agent of Russia, despite their inability to produce any hard evidence to support this claim. This tactic of smearing critics as Russian agents is the mirror image of the Putin administration’s tactic of labeling Putin critics as agents of the West. It is reminiscent of the shameful history of Russia-baiting attacks against political opposition leaders like Martin Luther King Jr.," Stein said.
- Stein added that she did not confront Putin about human rights violations when she visited Moscow in 2015 because there was no interpreter present. She continued, "Clinton’s anti-Russian maneuvering will surely be used by Putin to justify further attacks on his political opponents as agents of the West, and Republican Donald Trump seems as uninterested in human rights as he is in environmental progress. What the Greens offer is completely different: we see Russians not as enemies to conquer or resources to exploit, but as members of the global community whom we must deal with. We seek principled collaboration to develop potential partnerships to create a world that works for all of us."

In August 2016, Stein had called Russian President Vladimir Putin's goals in eastern Europe "not good." She continued, "I would have no faith and trust in Putin, but on the other hand I think to be needlessly militarizing this conflict is not in the interest of the American people. It’s certainly – and take the Middle East as a case in point, a case study of where we’ve had incredible chaos – who has benefitted from this? I don’t think the American people, I don’t think the people of the Middle East.”^[5]

Stein had traveled to Moscow, Russia, in December 2015 to participate in a panel organized by RT, a television network funded by the Russian government. She said that both the United States and Russia spend too much on the military. Stein also attended a dinner with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "While the objective of that dinner was not to engage in serious discussions, Putin did appear to respond in his formal remarks to the call for greater dialogue and collaboration made by myself and three other political figures on the foreign policy panel earlier that day," Stein said.^[6]
- Stein defended the trip and her participation in the panel in an interview on August 7, 2016. "My contribution to that panel was to tell Putin and everybody else that it was time for a peace initiative in the Middle East and we needed to stop the war in Syria. We needed to stop the bombing, we need a weapons embargo, and to freeze the funding of those countries that continued to fund terrorism. So I think they ought to. Hillary Clinton ought to pay attention to the kinds of policies I was actually talking to Putin about. And interestingly, Putin watched our conference and our panel, and his remarks that night at that dinner was that he had heard the foreign politicians and he was shocked to find that he agreed with us on the need to create a peaceful path forward on Syria," she said.^[7]

When asked in July 2015 if the United States should help Ukraine against Russia, Stein said, "We should encourage Ukraine to be neutral—we helped foment a coup against a democratically-elected government, [resulting in a government] where ultra-nationalists and ex-Nazis came to power. Imagine the inverse: if Russia did that in Canada—installed a government hostile to us—we saw something like that in Cuban Missile Crisis—that would not be acceptable to us. So let's not be single-issue—instead of fomenting a hostile Ukraine we should be leading the way in establishing a neutral Ukraine that would allow Russia to not feel under attack. We've made great strides—Putin is not a hero—but as Noam Chomsky points out, the Doomsday clock has moved closer to midnight than it has been since 1983. The hostile faceoff with Russia causes that and is entirely misplaced—led by war hawks in Obama administration—especially [Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs] Victoria Nuland, who cheered on an overthrow in Ukraine."^[8]
Read what other 2016 presidential candidates have said about Russia.