scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Neutrality in foreign relations

Posted by Trevor in under other on Aug 8th, 2006 | View Comments |

Adam Ricketson at Freedom Democrats has what I consider a great post discussing neutrality in foreign relations.

Below I have outlined a number of principles describing this foreign policy of “engaged neutrality”:

  1. No allegiance to foreign nations: Our support or opposition of the policies of another nation are based solely on whether those policies promote peaceful relations among people. We will not act to generally strengthen or weaken a foreign nation outside of a state of war.
  2. Respect for the sovereignty of foreign nations: We hold no opinion regarding the system of government of foreign nations, nor the governors of those nations. We will not attack or otherwise attempt to undermine the governing structure of any nation outside of a state of war.
  3. Defensive military deployments: Military units will only be deployed to countries in which they are fully welcomed, and only to act in defense of that territory from external aggression.
  4. Defensive war: Full war will only be declared in response to an attack on American soil, or systematic international aggression. We will not take sides in historical conflicts, border disputes, or internal conflict.
  5. Free trade: During peacetime, we will only restrict trade with a country in response to ongoing theft of labor (slavery), and these restrictions will be lifted on the condition that the benefits of trade go to the workers as either wages or services. The export of weapons and dual-use items to an aggressor country may be prohibited.
  6. Aid to victims of aggression: Economic aid will be provided to the victims of aggression to help them recover from violence and resist aggression. Aid may include “dual use” items that aid in military operations but can be easily converted to civilian use upon the cessation of hostilities.
  7. Discouragement of aggression: We may engage in direct attacks upon military units of an aggressor country that are operating in a foreign country.

I’ll be one of the few military people to say that I think our foreign entanglements and treaties are unsustainable and that we cannot survive indefinitely as the world’s only global police force. Our military is being used in ways that are counterproductive have nothing to do with national defense. It’s hard enough fighting in two countries at once. If a third conflict blows up in our faces now, we’re in trouble.

Similar Posts:

| Print This Post Print This Post |
  • Trevor, sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. My problem with the proposal is item 2. That is the one that will allow dictators to gain strength and carry on terrorist attacks against America, so it negates the other items in the proposal, as the ongoing acts of war will continue.
    Natan Sharansky disussed four elements that constitute a free society:
    1. The rule of law
    2. Freedom of speech and expression
    3. Free and open elections with viable opposition candidates.
    4. A method of monitoring human rights

    Any nation which does not meet these criteria cannot be negotiated with without ceding trade, territorial, arms, or financial concessions. Concessions to these governments only make that government stronger in the oppression of its people.
    When the people are oppressed terror organizations form. Where that is not the case, the government often continues criminal activity against other nations, in order to get even more concessions.

    I agree that we should have no part of the UN. Sharansky suggests, and I agree, that if there is to be an international treaty, it should include only the nations which meet the four criteria. Great Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Peru, Indonesia, Chile, Czech Republic, Hungary, and many others do meet these criteria. Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, are among those who do not. As Sharansky wrote:
    "Saudi Arabia could cut off all their oil. The free world could survive such a blow, but Saudi Arabia could not."
  • I'm flattered that you liked my foreign-policy outline. I had written it up rather quickly just to get a discussion started at the Freedom Democrats site (it isn't a Master's thesis, or anything like that). I had expected it to need a bit of revision before taking it beyond that community.

    Anyway, I'd like to clarify a couple of apparent misunderstandings:

    1) This foreign policy paradigm is meant to apply to the USA, today. Not the USA during the Cold War, and not to any other country.

    2) I think that Israel's actions in Lebanon could be justified within this paradigm. First, as far as I know, Israel never made peace with Lebanon, so they are in a state of war, for which I made exceptions to many of the points in the policy outline. Even if they had a peace treaty, Israel was attacked from within Lebanon's borders, and Lebanon wasn't doing anything about it, so that qualifies as "defensive war" (point 4 in the outline)
  • Oh, one more note. Trevor, I agree that our current morass of treaties and entanglements is unsustainable. That doesn't mean they're not necessary.

    But the sooner we can get out of it, the better.
  • Shane: I'm not sure which parts were contradictory, but I'd like to find out. If my reasoning or my communication is muddy, I want to be more clear. Email me if you don't want to respond here.

    Dale & Trevor: I didn't expand on my point about making the world safer. No, I don't believe that the US should be the world's police force, and more than anything I think US troops should be used sparingly.

    The fact that the US has arguably the best trained and equipped force in the world should not eclipse the fact that they are a relatively small force in comparison to the rest of the world.

    Therefore, it should be used more as a fulcrum than a lever, allowing the power of America's economic and political resources to be used in leveraging results.

    Sadly, some times you have to move the fulcrum in close to get the desired results. But the end result is that you don't need the force at all.

    It's partly because the United States allowed the situation in the Middle East to fester for so long that we have to deal with terrorism on this scale.

    huh, I'm writing more on your blog than on mine...
  • Jim,

    A consortium of free nations sounds great to me, but they should still be non-interventionist unless there is a genocide taking place or their interests are directly threatened. Do you have any countries in mind? Give me your top ten...
  • Trevor, I guess I'm more of a Libertarian internationalist, than a Libertarian nationalist. I pretty much subscribe to Natan Sharanski's theories, most of which have been proven correct, than to most of the proposal you presented here. We cannot continue to appease tyranny with trade concessions, or with any kind of negotiation. Every time we do, it just empowers the tyrant to create more hardship for the oppressed, and more cause for said tyrant to act against the external enemy--usually that nation giving the concessions--in order to justify the oppression of the people. In The Case For Democracy, Sharanski proposes doing away with the United Nations, and forming a consortium consisting only of nations with a free society. I am all for that.
  • Dale,

    I don't think many Americans are willing to join the military these days. The pay is low compared to what can be made in the private sector. The benefits are not that great. You'll be deployed constantly and that makes it very hard to have a traditional family or to maintain a healthy marriage.

    While I do think humanitarian causes are laudable, they shouldn't be under the U.S. military's purview unless America herself is threatened in some way.

    America is 300 million people, about half of whom seem to enjoy living in a culture of hedonism and government entitlement. American doesn't have the numbers to protect the weak worldwide. Start an international armed charity if your goal is to protect the weak worldwide.
  • Dale
    Who would not join the military if the cause is just ?
    I would vote for intervention in Darfur and in the Congo. I see nothing wrong with fighting the good fight and I define the good fight as the protection of the innocent. Rwanda and the lack of a worldy response was a disgrace to humanity. So was Pol Pot. So is Darfur.
    Screw the other nations. Stand for what is right... and the protection of human life is right! If the local government cannot protect its citizens from thugs and brigands, then let the US lead the way.
    My criticism of the US military right now is its failure to protect the Baghdad citizen. I expect more from us. I raise the bar for America to protect the weak worldwide. One country at a time, if need be.
  • Dale & Datarat: You made some good points. I find them a little contradictory and unrealistic myself.

    I do however whole-heartedly agree with this statement Trevor: "I’ll be one of the few military people to say that I think our foreign entanglements and treaties are unsustainable and that we cannot survive indefinitely as the world’s only global police force."

    We need other nations to stop critisizing and start helping. The problem is that TOO MANY nations conviently use the "nuetrality" excuse to not get involved (while undermining our efforts every step of the way) and ultimately we pay and frankly I can see why you're sick and tired of it.
  • Trevor, the problem is that the problems that can affect the United States are not reliant on the number of troops we can deploy, but rather the opposite.

    If other nations were willing to act decisively the need would be lessened, but unfortunately the EU has rejected that possibility.

    In any case, the solution is to make the world safer overall. Regardless of any stated objectives, I believe that is the goal in Iraq and the Middle East.

    Point #2 is founded on the world of 50 years ago, however. The threat is ever more from non-state actors. Following the reasoning of much of this, all Israel could do in the case of being invaded and having soldiers kidnapped is to file a protest with the sovereign government of Lebanon. And file another protest when the rockets began to fall.

    Hezbollah is a non-state actor, and gets it's funding from Iran and Syria to wage a proxy war. To respect Lebanon's sovereignty would be to ignore the peril at Israel's doorstep.
  • So how many simultaneous wars should the U.S. be prepared to fight? I'm a National Guard soldier. Should I anticipate being deployed every third year? Every other year? What happens when something happens at home?
  • Dale
    I think this is unrealistic. It applies only to the overt side of conflict and not to the covert side. The use of money and munitions by governments to foster civil disorder is well known. None of the items above would have caused US military to work against Communism, it was a COLD WAR.
    I think this is also unambitious to bring about a peaceful earth. I am all for intervention in places where civil war reigns. I am supportive of stopping genocide by US military means.
    The use of our military and an aggressive posture should be used towards the protection of innocent human life.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes