Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Suspending Egypt’s Military Aid: Too Little, Too Late

Three months since the military coup in Egypt, U.S. military aid to the country is being reconsidered. It appears that the administration will

withhold the delivery of several big-ticket items, including Apache attack helicopters, Harpoon missiles, M1-A1 tank parts and F-16 warplanes, as well as $260 million for the general Egyptian budget.

The details of the freeze have not been disclosed. But after its refusal to call the events in Egypt a coup and a half-hearted cancellation of joint military exercises scheduled for September, this is certainly a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is too small and too equivocal as the administration is stressing that it wants to keep a door open to restore the aid in its entirety. More importantly, the announcement comes too late to make a meaningful difference to Egyptians.

Why all the reluctance? For years, Americans were told that aid to Egypt was a mechanism that gave the U.S. government leverage over developments in the most populous Arab country. The only sense in which that has worked is that aid has helped to deeply entrench authoritarian rule in the country. Egypt’s military has slowly built an opaque economic empire and a network of patronage with very little accountability. And even if one believes that a strong military and an autocratic secular state is what it takes to save Egypt from becoming a theocracy, there is nothing for Americans to gain from being complicit in the process and in everything that might possibly go wrong.

Indeed, many things have already gone wrong. The bloody aftermath of the coup might be just a foretaste of more violence looming on the horizon. Following the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt has seen a rise in Islamic radicalization, especially in the Sinai. In the meantime, the secular government has shown itself no more capable of tackling the country’s numerous economic challenges than the thoroughly inept cabinet of Hisham Qandil. And as American money keeps flowing in, ordinary Egyptians will keep blaming the United States for the rebirth of the militarized authoritarian state in their country and for its ugly repercussions.

More Evidence of Drug War Failures

In an article over at CNN.com, I discuss a new study that confirms that the war on drugs is an expensive failure. That report from BMJ Open, an affiliate of the British Medical Journal, reaches the damning conclusion, supported by compelling evidence, that drug warriors have consistently failed to achieve their stated objectives.

Among other findings, the report documents that inflation-adjusted and purity-adjusted prices of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin have all decreased dramatically since 1990. That was true in such geographically distinct areas as Europe, the United States, and Australia. In other words, illegal drugs are plentiful and cheap around the world, and there is no indication that the trend is likely to change. The authors state that despite “increasing investments in enforcement-based supply reduction efforts aimed at disrupting global drug supply, illegal drug prices have generally decreased while drug purity has generally increased.” 

None of this comes as a surprise to the swelling ranks of critics of the international drug prohibition policy. Drug abuse is certainly a major public health problem, and its societal costs are considerable. But banning the drug trade creates ugly social and economic distortions.  Because certain drugs are illegal, there is an enormous black-market premium (by most estimates, up to 90 percent of the retail price) associated with them.  That lucrative lure attracts the most corrupt, violent individuals and organizations. 

Can the Communist Party Take Back the Czech Republic?

PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC—The Czech Republic is one of the most successful members of the former Soviet Empire. Yet Czechs with whom I recently spoke fear liberty is in retreat. The former Communist Party might reenter government after elections later this month. 

Czechoslovakia was “liberated” by the Red Army at the end of World War II. After the Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, the so-called Velvet Revolution ousted the Czech Communist Party. Czechoslovakia soon adopted wide-ranging free market economic reforms and split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

In March Milos Zeman became the country’s first popularly elected president. The former Social Democratic prime minister has roiled Czech politics by claiming ever more expansive authority. 

Most dramatically, after the prime minister’s summer resignation President Zeman appointed a leftist government against the wishes of the parliamentary majority. The new cabinet lost a vote of confidence, but remains as caretaker until the upcoming election. 

Equally controversial are the president’s policies.  As I wrote in my new Forbes online article:

Moreover, the president reversed course on the EU after appealing to supporters of the Euro-skeptic [former President Vaclav] Klaus during the presidential campaign.  Once in office President Zeman hoisted the EU flag over the Prague Castle, which hosts the presidential office, and signed the European Stability Mechanism, the EU bail-out fund.  He describes himself as a “Euro-Federalist,” advocates common European fiscal, tax, foreign, and defense policies, and supports adopting the Euro as the Czech currency.

The greater worry is the revival of the Communist Party. As memories of Communist repression fade, some Czechs long for the perceived stability of the past. 

Close Washington to Dismantle the Welfare-Warfare State

The GOP is attempting to defund ObamaCare by holding the federal government hostage.  Congressional Republicans say:  Cut the spending or Uncle Sam will have to stay home. 

Unfortunately, while the public doesn’t favor President Obama’s plan to nationalize American health care, people seem even less enthused about Republican tactics.  Better would be a threat to close down the government because the government should be shuttered.  The GOP should seek to eliminate entire programs and agencies. 

Federal control of health care is a good place to start.  The U.S. medical system is a mess, but the government should not decide who gets how much health insurance in what form through whom. 

Moreover, as I wrote in Forbes online:

Corporate welfare should be another target.  Republicans rightly worry about perverse incentives created by welfare for the poor since federal programs have wrecked families and communities while discouraging education and work.  However, even less justified are a variety of payments to dependent businesses.  Export subsidies, research grants, farm subsidies, housing aid, regulatory preferences, and more.

There’s no better reason to underwrite smaller enterprises, through the Small Business Administration.  Is there really a critical scarcity of liquor stores requiring taxpayers to pay for additional ones? 

Some tasks, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, just aren’t Washington’s job.  Worrying about the construction of apartments and homes should be left to localities and states. 

Another unnecessary bureaucracy is the Department of Education.  The national government shouldn’t be trying to run local schools.  And why should lower-income taxpayers subsidize middle-class kids who want to become lawyers?

Grant the federal government authority to create parks involving uniquely scenic or otherwise special lands.  There’s still no reason for the Interior Department to own and manage hundreds of millions of acres of forest and range land. 

The Department of Defense possesses—at the sufferance of foreign governments—hundreds of properties abroad.  While maintaining cooperative relationships with foreign militaries as well as access to some of their bases is useful, the U.S. has no need for innumerable facilities and garrisons around the globe.  The U.S. should act as a back-up against the rare hegemonic threat that friendly states could not handle rather than the guardian against every mundane controversy and conflict that arises elsewhere.

Foreign facilities often are justified as logistical way stations for intervening in the Middle East or Central Asia.  However, Europe should provide the troops as well as the bases to deal with such hot spots as Egypt and Syria.  It would not be isolationism for America to more humbly and prudently engage the world.

Foreign aid should go the way of military intervention.  Even humanitarian assistance can have counterproductive impacts, while economic assistance has been a grand failure, doing more to subsidize debilitating collectivism than promote economic reform. 

There’s much at the Justice Department that should be eliminated.  Federal criminal law has exploded.  In some cases Congress makes crimes out of actions that should be left to civil punishment—environmental disputes, for instance.  Federal lawyers also have become the vanguard of political correctness, enforcing a racial spoils system under the guise of promoting affirmative action.

Other federal sacred cows also deserve challenge.  The Drug Enforcement Agency arrests people because they prefer to get intoxicated with drugs rather than alcohol.  There are scores of welfare and job training programs of dubious effectiveness.  If Washington moved from the income to a consumption tax, the IRS would be smaller and much less intrusive. 

While many people are criticizing Republicans for threatening to close the government over ObamaCare, there actually is good reason to go to the brink on shrinking the American Leviathan.  Washington meddles in Americans’ lives far more than the Founders ever imagined—and circumstances ever justified.  It’s time to reverse the process and really shut down government.

A Familiar Pattern of Futility in the International Drug War

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime announced last week that the production of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, has shifted away from Colombia toward Peru.  Observers of the war on drugs are not surprised by that development. During the early and mid-1990s, drug warriors hailed the decline of coca production in Peru and neighboring Bolivia, thanks to a crackdown that Washington heavily funded through aid programs to Lima and La Paz, as a great victory in the crusade against illegal drugs.  They ignored the inconvenient fact that cultivation and production had merely moved from Peru and Bolivia into Colombia–and to a lesser extent into nearby countries such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil.

That phenomenon is known as the “balloon” or “push down, pop up” effect.  Strenuous efforts to dampen the supply of illicit drugs in one locale simply cause traffickers to move their production to other locations where the pressure is weaker for the moment.  When Washington and Bogotá launched Plan Colombia in 2000, the multi-billion-dollar, multi-year program to attack the coca industry in that country, cultivation and production gradually began to shift back to Peru and Bolivia.  The latest UN report confirms that trend.  As Ricardo Soberón, the former heard of Peru’s drug policy office, put it: “The carousel has come full circle.”  Adam Isacson, an expert on Latin American drug issues with the Washington Office on Latin America, noted that the new map of coca production “looks an awful lot like the old” map from the early 1990s.

The latest development underscores how proclamations of victory in the international war on drugs invariably prove to be ephemeral.  Trying to suppress the supply of a product that is in high demand is a classic case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  The illegal drug trade is conservatively estimated to be a $350 billion per year industry, and global consumer demand is growing.  Even if a new crackdown in Peru causes a temporary disruption of the supply coming out of that country, all that we will see is a new “balloon” episode in neighboring states.  Indeed, there are indications that Brazil and Argentina already are becoming far more prominent participants in drug trafficking, in part because they are convenient transshipment points for sending drugs to Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, where consumption is on the rise.

We have ample evidence over the course of many decades that drug prohibition does not work; a prohibition policy merely guarantees that violent criminal elements instead of legitimate business enterprises will control the trade.  Focusing on which countries are supplying most of the drugs at a particular moment, and cheering about a temporary victory in one arena, is an exercise in futility.

Germany Votes against Limited Government

The world’s most watched elections occur in America. The world’s most boring election just occurred in Germany. As expected, Chancellor Angela Merkel was effectively reelected.

The Federal Republic of Germany is the world’s most admired nation and possesses Europe’s largest economy. Berlin’s political and economic stability is the envy of the European Union.

Merkel has served as chancellor for eight years. A skilled political infighter, she exudes confidence and competence.

Germans rewarded her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), with 41.5 percent of the vote, well ahead of the more left-wing Social Democratic Party. However, the CDU/CSU fell five seats short of a parliamentary majority. And Merkel current coalition partner, the Free Democratic Party, failed to receive the 5 percent of the vote necessary to be represented in the Bundestag.

Commentary on the election has focused on Merkel’s triumph. There is little doubt that she will remain chancellor. The only question is the identity of her coalition partner–and what price she will have to pay for that party’s support.

Ironically, policy isn’t likely to change very much as a result of the election. Merkel has steadily pulled her party leftward. Cem Ozdemir, co-chair of the Green Party, complained that the chancellor “becomes Green when it helps her and becomes a Social Democrat when that’s beneficial too.”

Alas, her policies helped wreck Germany’s liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP). The Free Democrats were created in 1949 and have served in the Bundestag ever since. In 2009 they made their best showing ever, 14.6 percent. Now, with just 4.8 percent of the vote, they are out of the Bundestag.

Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

Today Cato released a new white paper, “The End of Overkill? Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy.” I am proud to have contributed to this effort with lead author Benjamin Friedman of Cato, and Matt Fay, a former Cato research assistant now enrolled in the History PhD program at Temple University. We argue that U.S. security does not require nearly 1,600 nuclear weapons deployed on a triad of systems—bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)—to deliver them. We estimate that a smaller arsenal deployed entirely on submarines would save roughly $20 billion annually while deterring attacks on the United States and its allies.

The paper is part of a broader project, “From Triad to Dyad: Rationalizing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Delivery Systems,” made possible by the generous support of the Ploughshares Fund. The project began as a top-line review of the triad, but expanded into a more comprehensive study of U.S. nuclear strategy and policy. Over the last year, we presented our preliminary findings at over a dozen public events in ten different cities, as well as several engagements here in Washington, D.C. This process generated useful feedback along the way.

Here are a few excerpts from “The End of Overkill?”: