Featuring Chen Guangcheng, Visiting Fellow, Catholic University; Teng Biao, Associate, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; and Wei Jingsheng, Chairman, Wei Jingsheng Foundation; with comments by Xia Yeliang, Visiting Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Ian Vasquez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
Given the inherent injustice of dictatorial punishment for ‘extreme’ views, and the possibility of all sides having legitimate positions, the only remedy fair to both conservatives and those with whom they disagree is to phase out higher education subsidies.
If Prime Minister Modi makes tough decisions in leading his country forward, the 21st Century might end up being the Indian Century. But if so, he can’t delay much longer in putting his words into action.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
The Case against a Standing Nation-Building Office
Featuring Justin Logan, Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Christopher Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
The idea that the United States needs a standing nation-building office has gained strong bipartisan support in Congress. The arguments in favor of such an office are rooted in the belief that failed states are threats to U.S. national security. But do failed states pose such a threat? Further, to the extent that they do, would a permanent nation-building office succeed in averting or remedying state failure? When interventions are absolutely necessary, do we need a standing nation-building corps to plan for the missions?
Justin Logan will discuss his and Christopher Preble’s recent Policy Analysis, “Failed States and Flawed Logic: The Case against a Standing Nation-Building Office,” which explains why the presumption that state failure poses a threat to the United States is flawed. He will also explore the likely costs and risks of a foreign policy dedicated to nation building, given that U.S. nation-building projects in the past have had a highly dubious track record. Preble will explore the greatest foreign policy challenge facing the United States today — looming state failure in Iraq — and describe why it is unlikely that a standing nation-building office would have reduced the costs and risks of the current military mission there.