No, Mr. Trump, This Is Not How to Conduct Foreign Policy
Things are moving fast—a hallmark of an authoritarian inspired, emotionalist leader seeking to endear his loyal base and exhaust the opposition—so I’m taking another break from my 3-part letter to the prez to revisit what a rational foreign policy looks like. Because I refuse to get exhausted. Cheers!
The past week or so has seen swift developments on the U.S. foreign policy front. It started with JD Vance’s speech at Munich and continued with Marco Rubio cozying up to Russian thugs in Islamist totalitarian Saudi Arabia. POTUS followed with a revision of history accusing Ukraine’s Zelensky of being a dictator for not holding elections during a time of martial law, and of having started the war with Russia, all the while staying mum on the dictator scumbag aggressor in the room, Vladimir Putin. And that was only through Wednesday. As of writing this on Saturday afternoon, the torrent of information appears to have somewhat subsided, but don’t be surprised if you find it outdated come Sunday morning publication.
As for JD Vance’s speech, and POTUS’s comments, I agree that Europe must over time take care of its own defense, including supporting Ukraine, to stave off Russian aggression. The U.S. has for too long subsidized the defense of the “free” world through military alliances without much reciprocity. Until relatively recently, European countries have not paid their fair share, instead paying us back with regulatory action that hamstrings American companies in their business dealings on the continent.
And I have previously expressed my hesitation about unconditionally supporting Ukraine financially and militarily, a country that until recently ranked lower than Russia on both the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom and CATO/Frazer Human Freedom Index. Being the subject of totalitarian aggression doesn’t unquestioningly turn you into a saint as too many Americans seem to have viewed Ukraine the past three years. Finally, I do share the VP’s concern over European hate-speech laws which slowly but surely put free speech in a chokehold across the continent.
But this doesn’t justify, as JD Vance also did in his speech, casting as victims the pro-Russia German political right with its fair share of Holocaust deniers, and whitewashing Russia-tampering in Romanian elections. And it definitely doesn’t justify rolling over like a puppy and conceding to Putin his main Ukraine demands before even getting to the negotiating table—keeping occupied territories, removing sanctions, and pronouncing a glorious future of Russo-American cooperation. Negotiation tactics? Perhaps, but more likely a fundamental lack of principled thinking—a lack of understanding morally right from wrong—that will eventually come back to bite you.
In times like these, it is more important than ever to have a rational foreign policy vision to hold on to. It just so happens that I articulated such a vision for a future capitalist society in the book. It may admittedly at present seem a long shot, but let it serve as an example of “what could be,” and, hopefully, help you stay grounded. Enjoy—and you too, refuse to get exhausted.
5.14 Capitalism Promotes World Peace
As we’ve seen, one of government’s few proper functions is to protect our individual rights from being violated by other nations or military forces. In addition to a military to defend us against and deter foreign aggressors, we need a foreign policy that guides our relationships with other countries.
Most of us are busy living our lives and would rather not have to think too much about what’s going on with governments and military operations in foreign lands. Yet, it is crucial that our government has a rational foreign policy because, even though we’d rather be left alone, others may take an unfriendly interest in us.
Capitalism inherently promotes peace. Given the prosperity unleashed by capitalism, people busily pursue their careers and their personal relationships and interests and generally give no thought to initiating war with others. And a capitalist government, constitutionally restrained to the sole function of protecting individual rights, is tightly checked against initiating force against foreigners.
This is not the case under statism. If not checked or counteracted, statism always gets progressively worse, because, for collectivists, the answer to any problem created by statism is more statism. As we’ve seen, collectivism holds that the alleged “rights” of the group trump individual rights, so the collectivist mindset fosters ever-expanding encroachments on individual rights. As a welfare statist country becomes more autocratic and slides toward authoritarianism and eventually totalitarianism, its inhabitants grow ever less free and less prosperous. If the country is militarily powerful, chances are its leaders—oligarchs, theocrats, socialists, fascist or communist dictators—for both ideological and economic reasons, set their eyes on militarily weaker, but often freer and more prosperous, neighbors. Eventually, the temptation of a cheap geo-political lunch gets too strong and aggression ensues. This is the leading source of war. Examples from today’s world include China bringing Hong Kong under its boot (and threatening to do the same with Taiwan), North Korea’s aggression against South Korea checked only by a strong U.S. military presence, Russia’s ambitions to turn Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into vassal states, Iran’s ambitions to spread theocratic statism by supporting terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and Cuba’s infiltration of South and Central American countries.
Under capitalism, the main building block of a proper foreign policy does not involve interacting with other countries but leading by example at home. Capitalism bearing fruit at home in the form of unprecedented progress sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world. As we’ve discussed, the absence of taxes and regulations unleashes growth and leads to ever-expanding wealth. Other countries take notice and start to copy us. We saw it when the American Revolution inspired people in other countries to emulate us throughout the better part of the 19th century (with mixed success). And, following the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, many communist and socialist countries looked to the U.S. and other less statist countries for inspiration and guidance. Imagine how much stronger the example of unbridled capitalism would be.
A statist country may initially be reluctant to adopt aspects of capitalism, but the power of our example will not go unnoticed among its people. Over time, the pressure will build on the country’s politicians to follow our example as its people increasingly realize what they are missing and what more they could achieve.
Obviously, we will still need our military to protect us against foreign threats. With the economic growth unleashed in a capitalist social system, military expenditures can increase if needed even as military spending as a fraction of the economy drops over time. A drastic increase in military spending will most likely not be needed, because the countries copying our policies, whether reluctantly or not, will tend to move toward a less statist, more capitalist social system. Over time, as our trade increases and social values converge, other countries become more prosperous, and the peoples of the world have more to peacefully gain from each other. People elsewhere start to see us as friends and allies, and this drastically reduces the potential threat of military aggression.
As part of leading by example at home, we unilaterally remove trade barriers such as tariffs and subsidies. This is the only approach that is consistent with protecting our individual rights to freely trade with whomever we want (with the possible rare exception of countries that temporarily pose an imminent threat to us). Other countries may erect barriers against trade, but such policies are self-defeating as they violate the individual rights of their inhabitants and rob them of the full benefits of capitalism.
Given our military strength, other countries will be interested in entering defense alliances with us. As a condition for admission, we require each country to get on a path to capitalism: strengthen the protection of individual rights by reducing taxes and government spending, roll back regulations, and eliminate tariffs and subsidies. And as we don’t want to foot the bill for defending other countries, each country pays its share of the costs to maintain the defense alliance.
Smaller countries feeling threatened by larger neighbors will probably transition to (if already having some level of defense agreement with the U.S) or join the new alliance early. As their “leading by example at home” policies start to bear fruit—think a number of Singapore or Baltic states like economies emerging around the world—others will become interested. And someday even countries like Russia, Cuba, Iran and China may join. By that time, with a little stretch of the imagination, there may not be anybody left to defend ourselves against militarily.
The members of our current defense alliances (NATO, etc.) are mostly welfare states with a mix of free market and government controlled areas of society. As we launch the new explicitly capitalism-inspired alliance, some are likely to join early while others are less inclined to get on a path towards less welfare-statism. Being mostly longtime allies, we allow them significant time to decide whether to join, and if the decision is “no,” a transition period to take on their own defense.
Defense agreements are in our self-interest. Thanks to economies of scale, the cost of defending ourselves is reduced, as our military together with that of our allies can protect more territory without proportionally increased costs. And as more countries become friends and allies, real defense expenditures start to go down as well. And, most importantly, with more and more countries moving toward capitalism, the world becomes a more prosperous place. And the more prosperous the rest of the world, the more prosperous we become.
A capitalist social system with a foreign policy based on leading by example at home is the only way to achieve that elusive goal strived for by so many—world peace.
As you likely understand, Anders, we both share the ideals of individual responsibility and the individual moral/political "rights" logically demanded for its exercise. Having stated this, the context in which you base your opinions on the war in Ukraine and the exercise of U.S. diplomacy, I find to be contextually lacking.
NATO was created in 1949 because of the threat posed by the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (USSR). It immediately manifested following the Allies victory over Germany in 1945. USSR military and governing authorities refused to leave Eastern Europe and the 1/4th of occupied Berlin they had taken, and returning to the USSR’s previous borders.
It subsequently then attempted to “starve-out” the other occupying powers of Berlin (France, England, U.S.), by blocking their access to Berlin. Led by the U.S., what followed became known as “The Berlin Airlift.” It demonstrated that the Soviet’s strategy to gain control of the entire city of Berlin was not going to succeed. The airlift, begun in April of 1948, lasted until September of 1949. Beginning in 1961, German authorities in East Berlin, with approval of the USSR, began erecting a wall guarded by sentries with orders to shoot anyone attempting to leave any Communist-occupied territory.
Concurrently, with what was going on in Germany, project “Verona,” begun by nascent U.S. Intelligence during WWII, was continually monitoring Russian nuclear activities. While no official record of a report of which I am aware, there is little doubt that the looming test of the USSR’s first nuclear bomb, tested on August 30, 1949, had entered into the motivation for the formal creation of NATO on April 4th, 1949. Its purpose was to pose an insurmountable threat to Soviet Socialist aggression by uniting a number of “Western” allies to provide deterrence from what was about to become a looming nuclear threat – not just another plain “vanilla” potential world war!
It initially contained 12 members States with two more added in 1953. The arms race between the Soviet Union and the “West” (in reality, the U.S.) was now gathering mutually-pledged “steam.”
Fast forward to December, 1991, when the USSR “dissolved.” Three of the USSR’s “Republics, Russia, Beloruse, and Ukraine, declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed. Eight more republics joined their declaration shortly thereafter. The “reason” for the creation of NATO no longer existed. Ukraine was induced to surrender its Nukes. What remained of “Russia” struggled with its new isolated “sovereignty.” In spite of this, not only did NATO not dissolve itself as well, but:
- In the late 1990s, NATO expanded to include former Eastern Bloc countries, with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joining in 1999.
In 2004, seven more countries joined, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
- Montenegro joined in 2017, and North Macedonia became a member in 2020, bringing the total to 30 member countries.
While this was going on, Putin, who became the dictator in Russia while wearing various political monikers, repeatedly warned each American President from 2000 forward, that he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. He continually received assurances from Clinton and after, that Ukraine joining NATO would NOT be pursued! Yet, mysteriously, politicians in Ukraine who were opposed to it becoming the 31st member State of NATO were eventually replaced by an elected leader who indicated he could see Ukraine as a new member of NATO.
With respect to “Ukraine sovereignty,” Russian involvement in the East of it, and what are Putin’s intentions, I have previously made my opinions and the underlying reasoning for them clear. There are plenty of sources for information on such things in the record. The “bottom-line” is the fact that we are antagonizing a nuclear-armed-to-the-teeth dictator who does not trust the West’s politicians any more than they (we) trust him! If ever a recipe for Armageddon, I cannot imagine a worse one save for the idea that it is “in our interest” to support a/the war in Ukraine!
My belief underlying my going to the trouble to cite what I have, is to challenge the idea that “we” have been on the side of “our interests” in Ukraine; that what has gone on in Europe since the reason for NATO’s existence no longer existed; that NATO – for now over 30 years has been generating the usual flows of money from those who have it to those who don’t; that after 1991, those receiving it no longer have reason for getting it; that “NATO” (meaning European politicians and some of us) finally precipitated a further reason for continued appeals/demands for continued flows of it, are the underlying and real reasons behind the frantic and continued cries of “Russia, Russia, Russia!”
Putin is a thug. He is not a fool, however. As Vance’s visit/reminder to the gathering of actual and potential thugs in Munich demonstrated, European leadership has become closer to the values we oppose than to those we once shared (we share in responsibility for such a development).
As I have said to several friends, “though containing halitosis, Trump, Vance, Rubio, and others – at least thus far in less than one month, are providing breaths of fresh air! Actual leadership is tough, inviting critics from all persuasions. It is so because engaging in leadership is fraught with pitfalls. It features the potential that criticism, often in abundance, is entirely valid. Conversely, applause the occasional exception.
Count me in the applause!