Europe is slowly disarming.  That really isn’t America’s business, but for the traditional expectation that America would fill the gap.  That is ever less likely, however, as budget pressures slow U.S. military expenditures.  Now the French are appear to be ready to do more in response.

European expenditures will continue on a downward path because Europe no longer faces any serious, let alone existential, threats.   European Union leaders might talk about creating a continental foreign policy and military, but European peoples exhibit little interest in paying the resulting bill, especially with the continent in economic crisis. 

This is a prescription for eventual European disarmament, but as I recently pointed out in National Interest online, hope is flickering in France.  I explained:

France’s financial difficulties created pressure for additional cuts in military outlays.  The Hollande government recently released its defense review, known as the Livre Blanc, or White Book.  Although the government reduced its rapid deployment forces, it “opted to keep France’s air, ground and sea capabilities, while freezing defense budgets over six years,” noted the Economist.  Outlays will shrink in real terms and as a percentage of GDP, but “Dark talk of the loss of 50,000 jobs proved unfounded.  The planned yearly cuts will be smaller than under the previous president, Nicolas Sarkozy.  France will maintain its capability for expeditionary warfare, and boost special forces.”

One reason Paris isn’t cutting as much as expected is Gallic pride.  But the French White Book also noted that Americans will “prove more selective in their overseas engagements.”  Thus, France must do more to maintain a global presence.

It’s a small step, but offers an important lesson for U.S. policymakers.  Instead of whining about lower European military outlays, Washington should simply shed the burden of Europe’s defense.  Then let the Europeans decide how to respond and bear the consequences accordingly.

I regularly cross America’s borders, so I’m happy that a new court ruling will make it harder for border agents to search and seize travelers’ computers.

In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially exempted border searches from the Fourth Amendment.  Only in the most extreme cases, such as detaining or strip-searching a traveler, is “reasonable suspicion” of criminal conduct necessary.

Only once in decades of travel have I been forced to hand over my computer.  But thousands of other Americans have had to do so over the years, and it is much worse when the government takes the computer for a “forensic” review elsewhere. 

However, in April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in U.S. v. Cotterman, that while a simple search involving a quick review of a laptop likely is constitutional, a more detailed review “transformed [the search] into something far different.”  Thus, “reasonable suspicion” was required.

The dissenters complained about treating differently someone who hid digital child pornography on his computer and “hid” printed child pornography in his briefcase.  But as I pointed out in my new Forbes online column, there are important differences:

One is that international travelers know their belongings are subject to visual search.  A briefcase and printed materials also are inherently less secure against private snoops as well as government investigators than password-protected computer files.

Moreover, as the appellate majority observed, “The amount of private information carried by international travelers was traditionally circumscribed by the size of the traveler’s luggage or automobile.  That is no longer the case.  Electronic devices are capable of storing warehouses full of information.”  While it is easy to separate the business and personal as well as the innocent and incriminating among personal effects, it is not so easy to similarly divide computer files.  Concluded the judges:  “A person’s digital life ought not be hijacked simply by crossing a border.”

Very true.

Of course, Cotterman’s offenses were horrid.  But the court concluded that “Reasonable suspicion is a modest, workable standard that is already applied.”

Catching criminals is important.  However, it is a free society that we are protecting.  Traveling internationally should not require sacrificing one’s basic freedoms.

One of the most important lessons one learns from traveling abroad is to be culturally sensitive. A self-professed sophisticate like myself would never want to be considered to be the prototypical “Ugly American.”

Yet as I’m visiting the Persian Gulf kingdom of Qatar I’ve been thinking about who gets to decide on culture.

Most of us believe that certain practices are beyond the bounds of tolerance. Consider the Indian practice of suttee—the burning of widows—which Britain banned. Set aside whether the British government should have shown up with soldiers, guns, and warships and claimed the Indian subcontinent as its own; once there, surely it was right to forbid murder.

In a story that may be apocryphal but should be true even if not, an Indian complained to a British colonial official that it was tradition to burn widows on their deceased husbands’ funeral pyres. The official replied, according to the story, that it was British tradition to execute those who burned widows on their deceased husbands’ funeral pyres.

Of course, nothing like suttee is going on in Qatar. Indeed, as Muslim societies go, it is a pretty liberal place. Observance of conservative Islamic tenets is routine but often not deeply held. Some younger Qatar citizens (and TV cameramen!) look a lot like their Western counterparts. I wasn’t the only person on my flight to arrive wearing shorts. Hotels that cater to Westerners serve alcohol and provide Western television stations. Men and women use the gym together.

Still, visitors are warned to be sensitive, especially of dress. People should be modest in all circumstances. Shorts are tolerated, but should hit the knee. Shoulders should be covered.

Read the rest of this post »