Topic: Foreign Policy and National Security

Martin Anderson: Renaissance Idea Man for Liberty

When I was growing up, the draft was an ugly rite of passage for young men.  But when I turned 18 no “Uncle Sam wants you” notice arrived in the mail. 

America had shifted to a volunteer military.  At the time I didn’t know who to thank for the freedom to choose my future.  But I later met the man responsible while attending Stanford Law School.

Martin Carl Anderson, who died a few days ago, then was in residence at the Hoover Institution.  I thought our encounter was happenstance, but years later Anderson told me that he had been reading my articles in the Stanford Daily and elsewhere and wanted to meet me.

Anderson left to help set up the Ronald Reagan campaign operation in March 1979.  As I approached graduation he asked me to join the campaign. 

Anderson was a stellar example of an intellectual able to translate detailed academic research into policy ammunition.  He received his PhD in 1962.  Five years later he began advising Richard Nixon, ending up as a special assistant to President Nixon before joining the Hoover Institution in 1971.

As I wrote in American Spectator online:  “Anderson had many interests, but one overriding philosophy:  He believed in individual liberty.”  He began his policy career with an explosive attack on urban renewal, through which slums would be cleared and new communities created. No surprise, the effort was extraordinarily expensive and socially destructive.  In 1967 the MIT Press published The Federal Bulldozer:  A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1949-1962

Anderson was a draftee who turned his intellect and energy to ending conscription.  He seamlessly joined policy research and political maneuver, selling Nixon on the virtues of a volunteer military. 

Anderson left the Nixon administration before its ugly implosion, but returned to government with Reagan to address the AVF’s deficiencies, an effort in which I was involved as his assistant.  However, Anderson’s most important work for Reagan was shaping the economic agenda. 

Although Anderson was loyal to those he served—he never published a kiss-and-tell memoir—he did not let personalities get in the way of principle.  When Nixon proposed essentially a negative income tax in the guise of the Family Assistance Plan, Anderson brought his accustomed skills into opposition.  In 1978 Hoover published Anderson’s Welfare:  The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States

Anderson’s most important work after leaving the Reagan administration was explaining and amplifying President Reagan’s legacy.  In 1988 Anderson published Revolution:  The Reagan Legacy, a wonderfully readable account of what Reagan’s success and presidency meant.  In 2001 Anderson and his wife Annelise joined historian Kiron K. Skinner to produce Reagan, in His Own Hand:  The Writings of Ronald Reagan that Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America

Like most everyone in or seeking high political office Reagan employed ghost-writers on occasion.  But the Andersons found a treasure trove of the articles and scripts in Reagan’s own hand.  The latter wrote the vast majority his material from start to finish.  Two years later the two Andersons along with Skinner released Reagan:  A Life in Letters, revealing fascinating glimpses of the former president’s life through the letters he wrote.

Even more significant was Reagan’s Secret War:  The Untold Story of his Fight to Save the World from Nuclear Disaster, written by both Andersons.  Declassified documents demonstrated Reagan’s determination to eliminate the threat of nuclear war.  Reagan abhorred what he called the Evil Empire for all the right reasons, but worked with Mikhail Gorbachev to end the Cold War.

Although Anderson operated at the pinnacle of the American political system, he was an ideas man uncomfortable with typical bureaucratic infighting.  He left the Reagan administration after little more than a year and then concentrated on offering advice as an outsider.

In recent years Marty, as I will always know him, and I only talked occasionally, and not nearly enough.  But he fought the good fight until the end.  We are all better off because of his manifold efforts.  Marty, RIP.

The Potential Long-Term Consequences of the Paris Shooting

The horrific killing of 12 people who ran the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which published the controversial Mohammed cartoons in 2011, by suspected Muslim extremists is likely to have serious consequences. In the short run, it will result in shock, grief, and possibly counterattacks on some innocent Muslims living in France. The long-term consequences of the shooting could be monumental.

First, the French could get their first female head of state since Queen Anne’s regency during the minority of Louis XIV. Queen Anne faced a massive revolt of the nobles known as the Fronde and a subsequent civil war. Ms. Marine Le Pen’s presidency could be similarly eventful.

While, as libertarians, we despise much of what Ms. Le Pen stands for, the two mainstream political parties in France, Mr. Sarkozy’s socialist center-right UPM and Mr. Hollande’s Socialist Party, have totally failed to address the legitimate concerns of the French citizens, chief among them the failure of multiculturalism and high unemployment. The country is ready to hand the reins of power to someone else.

Second, the euro will end its role as a global currency and remain a legal tender in something akin to Großdeutschland greater Germany, composed of Germany and her satellites, like the hapless Slovakia. Ms. Le Pen is mistaken in thinking that the French withdrawal from the euro will revive the French economy. French economic difficulties are primarily structural (i.e., high taxes and over-regulation), not monetary.

Be that as it may, Ms. Le Pen has set her sights on exiting the euro and, at least as far as this author is concerned, the sooner she puts the euro out of its misery, the better. They might even build her a statue in Athens. (Perhaps 2,000 years from now, it will be admired with as much reverence as Venus de Milo is revered today, but I digress…).

Third, on day two of a Le Pen presidency, border guards will return to the French frontiers. Of course, the end of the freedom of movement will be in full breach of all sorts of European treaties and conventions. (The British, by the way, would love to do the same, but cannot, because the British, being British, follow the rules. In contrast, the French, being French, will do what they have always done: follow their national interest.)

France will not be stopped. Because as it is big and powerful, it is not subject to the same rules that govern the rest of the EU. That is why the French have been allowed to make mincemeat out of the Maastricht Treaty without any consequences.

That will cause a major crisis in the EU and lead to a clarification of what the EU is–a cooperative arrangement between sovereign states–and what the EU is not–the United States of Europe.

Foreign Policy Lessons for 2015 and Beyond

A new year offers a fresh start, an opportunity to reminisce about the year past, and to set goals for the future.

2014 was a busy year. Vladimir Putin hosted the world at Sochi, then reacted to a popular revolt in Ukraine by supporting a counter-revolution and annexing Crimea. Other civil wars raged in Libya and Syria, while Egypt’s military quashed any remaining semblance of democracy that had survived from the 2011 protests. The not-destroyed insurgency returned to Iraq with gusto, fueled by American weapons left behind by an Iraqi army unwilling to fight. And the United States continued its habit of conducting numerous tactical operations abroad without any overarching strategy.

The news wasn’t all bad: Germany and the world celebrated the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall; President Obama proposed normalizing relations with Cuba; and NATO operations in Afghanistan have (kind of) ended.

The lessons from these episodes suggest some useful resolutions for U.S. policymakers:

Close the Government to Close Bad Government Programs

The lame duck Congress suffered through its usual year end brinkmanship before avoiding a government shutdown.  Horrors! What would people do if politicians weren’t able to legislate, regulate, and dictate in the “public interest?” 

The traditional civics book notion of government is that the state does for us what we cannot do for ourselves.  If the state focused on its most fundamental tasks, we might notice if it closed.

Unfortunately, the state has turned into something very different.  It’s now a welfare agency for the wealthy, a vast soup kitchen for special interests, an engine for social engineering at home and abroad, and a national nanny determined to run citizens’ lives.  Closing down Washington’s great income redistribution racket actually would help most Americans. 

Yet, as I point out in the American Spectator:  “perhaps the most irritating, even infuriating, government activity is paternalism.  There’s a basic difference between a gang of highwaymen and Congress.  The first group takes your cash and then leaves you alone.  The second group empties your wallet or purse, and then insists on sticking around for your benefit to manage your life.  Your new overseers expect not only regular payment but eternal gratitude.”

Consider the campaign against smoking.  Adults are entitled to smoke cancer sticks if they want.  The idea that not one restaurant or bar in a city of thousands or state of millions can allow someone to smoke is, well, outrageous.

U.S. Must Tell Ukraine No to Joining NATO

The Ukrainian parliament has repealed the law barring participation in NATO. The U.S. should respond no.

Right before Christmas Ukraine’s Rada repealed legislation mandating “nonparticipation of Ukraine in the military-political alliances.” Said President Petro Poroshenko: “Ukraine’s nonaligned status is out.”

Russia’s foreign minister called the move “counterproductive.” An alliance spokesman said “Our door is open and Ukraine will become a member of NATO if it so requests and fulfills the standards and adheres to the necessary principles.”

In fact, joining could be counterproductive for Kiev. Some Ukrainians may imagine that NATO would protect them from Vladimir Putin. But if the consequence was a full-blown war, as is likely, it would be a disaster for Ukraine.

Moreover, the West doesn’t have the will to act. In 2008 Georgians expected the American military to come to their rescue in their war with Russia. However, Washington would not go to war with Russia over such minimal geopolitical stakes.

The allies made a similar assessment of Ukraine. Despite abundant verbal support, practical aid has been limited.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has violated international norms, unleashed bitter conflict, upset the regional order, and disturbed his European neighbors. Nevertheless, his actions have had little impact on America and Europe. Keeping Ukraine whole simply doesn’t warrant playing international chicken with a nuclear-armed power.

Thailand’s Military Junta Enjoys Power and Postpones Elections

BANGKOK, THAILAND—Thailand’s capital has lost none of its frenetic motion but it is a bit quieter of late, with last year’s demonstrators dispersed by the military.

However, the junta, which took power in May, is not leaving. Instead it recently announced that it was putting off any vote.

Thailand’s political crisis has been years in the making. Once an absolute monarchy, the country’s democracy has been oft interrupted by military rule. A new constitution was instituted in 1997, but the business-military-court alliance hadn’t prepared for telecommunications executive Thaksin Shinawatra. 

In 2001 he won the votes of Thailand’s long neglected rural poor, giving his party a majority and making him prime minister. He spread state largesse far and wide and won again in 2005.

His frustrated opponents essentially gave up on democracy. Thailand’s political losers launched a campaign of disruptive protests against Thaksin, giving the military an excuse to oust the prime minister in 2006. 

However, new elections gave Thaksin’s successor party a plurality. Again opposition demonstrators took over streets.

Security agencies refused to protect the elected government. Courts abused the law to disqualify pro-Thaksin legislators. Elites which viewed themselves as born to rule then pressured coalition partners to switch sides. Bloodshed erupted when so-called “Red Shirts,” who backed Thaksin, traveled to Bangkok to protest the quasi-coup.

In Thailand’s 2011 election Thaksin’s sister Yingluck Shinawatra and their Pheu Thai party decisively defeated the Democrats. A former deputy prime minister then organized new mobs to prevent the government from functioning.

In May the army moved in. Emphasizing “national happiness,” the junta organized rallies featuring singing soldiers, female dancers in camo, and musicians.

Although soldiers did not arrive with guns blazing, the coup was real. Hundreds of people were arrested. Demonstrations are banned, as are public meetings of five or more people.

Journalists are barred from criticizing the government. Students are detained for using the three-finger salute from the movie Hunger Games. One of the military’s most effective tools of repression is the lese majeste law, which is used to punish even innocent discussions of the monarchy.

Shortly after grabbing control General turned Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha said that he hoped not to violate human rights “too much.” In that he has failed dramatically. Burma’s people now are freer than Thais.

The junta originally promised new elections next year after the constitution was changed to create “genuine democracy.” However, the regime now expects to rule at least until 2016.

Normalize Relations with Cuba

The Obama administration hasn’t had much foreign policy luck with the big issues.  But President Barack Obama is making progress with Cuba.

The spy/prisoner exchange offered obvious humanitarian benefits.  The more significant step announced by the president was to drop what he called today’s “outdated approach” to U.S.-Cuba relations.  His objective is to expand travel and trade with Cuba and reopen the U.S. embassy in Havana.

Of course, the administration’s plan has generated complaints from hard-line Cuban-Americans and Republican uber-hawks.  Representing both camps, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio denounced the policy as “absurd” and another example of “coddling dictators and tyrants.”

Rubio substituted rhetoric for argument.  He apparently realized he couldn’t make a practical case for maintaining sanctions, especially that they would ever achieve their purported end. 

A half century ago the Castros created a nasty dictatorship and allied with the Soviet Union.  But the Soviet Union, Cold War, Soviet-Cuban alliance, and Moscow subsidies for Cuba are all gone.  Only the Castro dictatorship lives on, despite the embargo.

Over the years the rest of the world ignored Washington’s ban.  Even after the cut-off of Soviet transfers the sanctions did not bring Havana to heel.

The administration’s plan is to begin discussions over reestablishing an embassy. Regulations would be changed to encourage more travel and remittances, particularly by Cuban-Americans.  The administration also intends to expand allowable exports to Cuba, including agriculture and construction.  The administration will review the designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. 

Normalization is long overdue.  There’s no longer a security argument for isolating Cuba.  At home the Castros are thugs, but that’s old news and hasn’t been affected by a half century of sanctions.  What we know as a result of essentially a controlled experiment with the embargo is that sanctions do not release political prisoners, generate competitive elections, unseat dictators, create a free press, or foster a market economy. 

Thirty years into the embargo supporters thought their moment finally had arrived with the collapse of the U.S.S.R.  In 1994 the Heritage Foundation’s John Sweeney declared that the Castro regime’s collapse is “more likely in the near term than ever before.”

Another two decades have gone by and all Washington’s policy of isolation has done is given the Castros an excuse for their failure. When I visited Cuba (legally) a decade ago I met Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz, who spent years in Castro’s prisons.  He criticized U.S. sanctions for giving “the government a good alibi to justify the failure of the totalitarian model in Cuba.”

Nor does isolation make a symbolic statement.  There have been and remain plenty of worse regimes in the world. 

Moreover, U.S. policy essentially made Fidel Castro.  Had Washington dismissed his regime, he would have receded in global importance, just another windbag dictator in charge of a poor, small state.  Instead, for decades he was seen as the premier global opponent of Yanqui Imperialism.

Of course, it’s important not to overstate the benefits of normalization.  Cubans are limited in what they can buy and also in what they can produce to sell. 

Moreover, while greater economic and political contact will be naturally seditious and undermine Communist Party rule, the regime has carefully controlled past foreign investment.  Much more will still need to be done to encourage a freer society.

President Obama will face strong opposition, but even most Republicans today recognize that the embargo has failed.

As I wrote in National Interest:  “The Cuban people deserve far better than what the Castros have delivered.  Ultimately, their Communist dictatorship will end up in history’s legendary dustbin.  But not yet, unfortunately.”

Normalizing both economic and diplomatic relations with Havana should be seen not as a victory for the Castro government, but for the people of Cuba.  Liberty will come to that land.  The only question is when.  Expanding relations should help speed the process.