United Liberty

Written by Simon Lester, Trade Policy Analyst for the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.

California Rep. Devin Nunes has proposed what seems like a neo-con approach to trade policy:  Trade with our allies, not with our perceived enemies.  His goal is to make trade policy part of our general foreign policy, which, in his view, should focus on making alliances with our friends and isolating our enemies.

This is a bad idea, for many reasons.  I’ll explain the details of his plan a bit more, then I’ll go over all of the problems I see with it.

As he explains over at NRO, Rep. Nunes would like to create “an alliance of free-trading nations.” He supports the Trans Pacific Partnerhship (TPP) negotiations, and would also like to see U.S.-EU and U.S.-Brazil free trade agreements. He then talks about “distinguishing friend from foe,” and singles out Venezuela, the Gaza Strip, Russia and Egypt as countries who are “hostile” to the United States.

In support of his approach to trade/foreign policy, he has introduced in Congress the Economic Freedom Alliance Act, which is made up of several specific pieces of legislation to accomplish the various elements of his plan.

It would be easy to ignore this proposal.  It’s just some legislation introduced by one Congressman.  However, note the similarities with part of Mitt Romney’s economic plan:

Written by Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.

The presidential campaign will focus on foreign policy for a few hours on Tuesday when President Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York City while his Republican challenger Mitt Romney will address the Clinton Global Initiative just a few miles away. Each will try to wring some political advantage from speeches that are generally directed at foreign audiences.

Neither candidate is likely to come out a winner, although for different reasons. It will be difficult for President Obama to convince the electorate and the world that U.S. policies, particularly in the volatile Greater Middle East, are succeeding. But Mitt Romney’s challenge is greater. He must convince voters that his policies would result in tangible gains. It isn’t clear that they would, however, nor that his policies are sufficiently different from the president’s to convince voters to change horses in mid-stream.

The president is likely to call for staying the course. Echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks from last week, he will try to convince the people of the Middle East that the United States remains their friend and partner, and he will tell skeptical Americans that the feeling is mutual. He may point to the large quantities of aid that U.S. taxpayers have sent to the region to win points with foreign audiences, but this risks alienating the voters here at home.

In light of what has gone on in the Middle East in the last week, the United States now has, as Rep. Ron Paul explains at The Hill, an opportunity to take a look at our foreign policy before we make yet another mistake by getting involved in Syria:

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, either by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or by bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.

Unfortunately what we saw in Libya this week is nothing new.

In 1980s Afghanistan the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what we now know as al-Qaeda, and our one-times allies turned on us most spectacularly on September 11, 2001.

Iraq did not have a significant al Qaeda presence before the 2003 U.S. invasion, but our occupation of that country and attempt to remake it in our image caused a massive reaction that opened the door to al Qaeda, leading to thousands of US soldiers dead, a country destroyed, and instability that shows no sign of diminishing.

Eleven years ago today, 19 terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people after hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Realizing their fate, Passengers on United Flight 93 fought back, preventing an attack on the Capitol in Washington. Their plane would crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. As soon as Americans realized what happened, we knew we were at war.

I was 20 years-old at the time of the attacks. My plans for the day were to pick up a couple of records that had been released that day and head into work for a shift I’d picked up for a friend. After a quick phone conversation with my then-girlfriend at the time (she was a student at the University of Georgia), I got on the web. She sent me a IMs almost immediately telling me to turn on the TV. If I remember correctly, the South Tower had just been hit. When I wasn’t working or sleeping for the next two weeks, I was watching coverage of the aftermath of the attacks.

While I had an interest in politics, the 9/11 attacks really pushed me to get involved and take what is going on in our country seriously. Much of what has happened since that tragic day helped shape my political views; particularly on foreign policy and personal liberty.

The anti-war movement has all but disappeared. You would think that with both major party conventions coming up, they would take the opportunity to demonstrate, especially with the media being concentrated at the conventions. However, there are no plans to demonstrate and in fact you don’t hear a whole lot about the war in Afghanistan anymore. Short of putting Cindy Sheehan’s face on a milk carton, we really need to find where the anti-war movement has gone because 2,000 American soldiers have now died in Afghanistan. If war was bad when George W. Bush was president, why isn’t it bad now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office?

Not only has Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and kept Bush’s Iraq withdrawal timeline; he even started a new war in Libya. Plus, the Obama administration appears to heading down the road to war with both Syria and Iran. Obviously, the wars have not stopped. American soldiers have not stopped dying overseas and drone strikes certainly haven’t stopped all over the world. Why has the press and so-called anti-war activists ignored the ongoing wars?

The only unfortunate conclusion to make is that the anti-war movement were either at best pawns of the Democratic Party or they really don’t have a problem with war in general, but only with wars launched by Republican presidents. This isn’t just a phenomenon confined to the left, because the right only generally believe in limited government when a Democrat is president. All this means is that when a Republican is elected president and decides to go to war, it will be easy to dismiss war opponents as partisan hacks. It will be just a way to silence debate and opposition by the War Party.

Written by Christopher Preble, Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. Posted with permission from Cato @ Liberty.

Yesterday, Cato released a new video pointing out that the military spending cuts specified under the Budget Control Act’s sequestration provision are not large relative to total spending, and would still have the U.S. government spending nearly $5.2 trillion on the Pentagon’s base budget over the next ten years. Under sequestration, the average annual total, $472 billion in constant, 2012 dollars, is well above the level spent during the 1990s (average $422 billion), and comparable even to what we spent during much of the Cold War. The video (building on my and Ben Friedman’s earlier writing, especially here) spells out the strategic rationale for even deeper cuts.

Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had an interesting discussion about conservative-libertarian fusionism. Jeremy Kolassa has written a couple of excellent posts about the issue, which you can read here and here. My rebuttal to Jeremy’s original post can be found here.

It seems as though we agree that libertarians will, at times, need to reach out to conservatives on issues where we have common ground. Jeremy’s broader point, and he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, is that we, as libertarians, need to make sure we have a separate identity, one that clearly delineates us from conservatives. For what it’s worth, I don’t really disagree.

There is no denying that the run up CPAC 2012 hurt whatever unspoken alliance that conservatives and libertarians have. It was clear, that after libertarian influence on the event in the two prior years, that we were not welcome at CPAC in 2012. Unfortunately, GOProud was also given the cold shoulder by social conservatives, many of whom threatened to boycott the event if the gay Republican group were allowed to continue sponsoring it.

Over the past couple of days, there has been a back and forth between President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign and Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign over the threat, if any, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez poses to the US. It started Tuesday when President Obama was interviewed about ties between Iran and Venezuela:

Obama had been asked by Miami’s America TeVe if he was concerned about what has been a public show of solidarity between Chavez and Iran.

“The truth is that we’re always concerned about Iran engaging in destabilizing activity around the globe,” the president replied. “But overall my sense is that what Mr. Chavez has done over the last several years has not had a serious national security impact on us.”

“We have to be vigilant,” Obama went on. “My main concern when it comes to Venezuela is having the Venezuelan people have a voice in their affairs and that you end up ultimately having fair and free elections, which we don’t always see.”

The hyperventilating overblown rhetoric that has resulted from hawkish neocon Republicans is of course predictable.

In a written statement, Romney assailed what he called “a stunning and shocking comment by the president.”

“It is disturbing to see him downplaying the threat posed to U.S. interests by a regime that openly wishes us ill. Hugo Chavez has provided safe haven to drug kingpins, encouraged regional terrorist organizations that threaten our allies like Colombia, has strengthened military ties with Iran and helped it evade sanctions, and has allowed a Hezbollah presence within his country’s borders,” Romney said.

Opinions on the role of the UN in a modern world differ greatly. To some, the UN is a bureaucratic cesspool that brings nothing of value to the world. To others, it is a cherished organization that offers the possibility of resolving conflicts through diplomacy. To Manhattan commuters — even the ones who love what the UN represents — the organization has become synonymous with congested traffic, road closures, and being late for happy hour. I happen to fall somewhere in the middle: believing the UN is indeed a bureaucratic mess but also valuing the idea of voluntary associations and cooperation between nations.

But today, I do not wish to discuss the overall role of the UN. For that, click here, here and here. I will also devote some more time on this subject in the near future.

What I wish to discuss today is just how ridiculous the UN has become. The organization is a great example of what moral bankruptcy looks like in practice: say one thing, but DO the exact opposite.

Case in point: the recent news that Syria appears likely to win a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Yes, you read that correctly. A government that has been torturing and killing its own citizens for over a year is set to become a member of the body charged with protecting … human rights.

And in case anyone doubts the depravity of Al-Assad’s regime, click on the links below (Disclaimer: some of the images are shocking):

Mitt Romney is bringing a lot to the table from a foreign policy prospective with which to be concerned. The GOP nominee recently said that he didn’t need congressional approval to go war with Iran, taking the executive power acquired under President Barack Obama, who bombed Syria without congressional approval, to the next step.

Just as concerning is that Romney is rumored to be considering John Bolton, who served as UN Ambassador in the Bush Administration, for Secretary of State:

Former Reagan administration Navy Secretary John Lehman, a current Romney adviser, is said to be a favorite for defense secretary. Also being mentioned for the top Pentagon post is former Sen. Jim Talent, Missouri Republican and also a current Romney adviser. Mr. Talent headed a blue-ribbon commission on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

John R. Bolton, the U.N. ambassador during the George W. Bush administration and specialist on arms control and security issues, is said to be a leading candidate for secretary of state.

Paula Dobriansky, another former Reagan administration official, is said to be eyed for a senior State Department post as well.

Bolton is very popular among conservatives, but as Daniel Larison, who, like me, finds the this prospect to be very concerning, notes that there is a good chance that he won’t be confirmed by the Senate to the post: