champions of military nonintervention on the other hand, myself
included, have consumed only a few scattered stands of Douglas
Fir faulting conservative Warfare Statists for demanding American
military intervention in foreign nations, all in the name of specious
altruist collectivist notions of "Benevolent Global Hegemony."
reason is that during the Cold War many libertarians viewed conservative
Warfare Statists as allies locked in a common struggle against
creeping socialism at home and galloping communism abroad. Libertarians
as a consequence cut conservative Warfare Statists a lot of slack.
Too much slack.
the end of the Cold War it is time libertarians called conservative
Warfare Statists to account for their hypocrisy. By sacrificing
millions of American lives, liberty and property in pursuit of
a vainglorious American Empire, conservative Warfare Statists
have inflicted as much if not more damage to our great republic
as liberal Welfare Statists.
Question: What should America's China Policy be?
The same as Canada and Mexico's China Policy.
anyone name one earthly reason why America's China policy should
be substantially different from that of our nearest neighbors
Canada and Mexico? Are Canada and Mexico endangering their own
national security by not adopting an hysterical attitude of unremitting
hatred of China? Are Canada and Mexico at risk from waves of PLA
Marines swarming onto the coast of British Columbia or Baja California
because they weren't sufficiently alert to a nonexistent "China
Threat?" Does anybody who hasn't completely lost his sanity
actually believe post-communist China has any interest in invading
Then why in the world would the United States of America be at
greater risk than Canada and Mexico? What in the hell are the
China Threat theorists so damned worried about?
U.S. Air Force has, depending on whom one believes, between 17,000
and 21, 000 nuclear missiles in her inventory, enough to annihilate
every man, woman and child on the planet, including nearly 300
million Americans. Not even the former Soviet Union, with an estimated
23,000 nuclear missiles, dared to attack America during the Cold
War, knowing full well they faced assured mutual destruction.
practical, workable ABM system is at least several decades, if
not a half century away from being anything more than Popular
Science magazine cover art. This means that for the next half
century America would remain utterly invulnerable even if American
defense contractors and the Pentagon froze all high tech military
R&D for the next fifty years, something no one in America
has eighteen, count 'em, eighteen, nuclear missiles with an intercontinental
capability. Knowledgeable American strategic analysts know full
well China's nuclear arsenal is a purely defensive, retaliatory,
second strike capability intended as deterrence against other
nations' nuclear blackmail.
does China have the slightest intention of squandering her national
treasury acquiring tens of thousands of ICBMs like the former
Soviet Union merely in order to acquire a first strike capability.
They know from sobering cost benefit analysis that the numbers
simply don't add up. Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin saw up close
and personal how the Soviets bankrupted themselves economically
engaging in a futile arms race with America. They aren't about
to repeat THAT mistake. That's why Deng Xiaoping decided early
on "It's the economy, stupid" and "took the capitalist
only ethical use of force is in self-defense. This is as true
between nations as it is between individuals. If America is attacked,
without provocation, by a foreign nation, Americans have a categorical
right to defend ourselves. Self-defense naturally does not include
traveling thousands of miles out of our way to side with one faction
rather than another in a foreign civil war. That is plain and
simple imperialist aggression, and the diametric opposite of legitimate
our government should, in the words of George Washington, "Observe
good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and
harmony with all Religion and morality enjoin this conduct;
and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?"
Question: What kind of foreign policy should naturalized Americans
advocate if they want to be genuine American patriots?
The same foreign policy as America's Founding Fathers.
Americans who wish to be patriotic Americans should advocate a
policy of "Trade, not Aid" with citizens of every nation
on earth, including their homelands. As George Washington put
it, "The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign
Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with
them as little political connection as possible."
Chinese-Americans should demand that the American government neither
help nor hinder mainland China's efforts to prevent Taiwan secession.
Chinese-Americans who deny their identities and who insist on
referring to themselves as "Taiwanese" should demand
that the American government neither help nor hinder Taiwan's
efforts to achieve secession.
as German, French and Italian Swiss refrain from urging that strictly
neutral Switzerland give preferential treatment to either Germany,
France or Italy, so Chinese-Americans should urge that our American
government remain strictly neutral regarding the confrontation
between Beijing and Taipei.
naturalized Americans or other American citizens are determined
to take sides in a foreign conflict, either via financial contributions
or volunteering for combat, they should do so purely as private
individuals. They may wish to join Abraham Lincoln style brigades
the way antifascist Americans did during the Spanish Civil War.
They must however not attempt to foist either the economic or
military burden of their causes onto other Americans who may not
share, and may in fact bitterly oppose their political agendas.
Warfare Statists, i.e., "Globocops on the Right" consider
this sort of neutrality un-American, unpatriotic. Unfortunately
they are dead wrong. If anyone is unpatriotic, it is the Warfare
Statists, "native born" or otherwise. They have apparently
forgotten what genuine American values are, assuming they knew
in the first place. A refresher course on American history would
not be out of order, starting with George Washington's Farewell
Address of 1796.
is composed of immigrants from almost every nation on earth. If
every hyphenated American, including but hardly limited to Chinese-Americans
, Irish-Americans and Jewish-Americans demanded that America remain
strictly neutral in the face of endless foreign conflicts, America
would be at peace with almost every nation in the world. Are jingoist
hawks like Jesse Helms and Chris Cox going to tell me this is
a BAD thing? I can't think of anything more patriotic a naturalized
American can do than to prevent fellow Americans from coming home
in bodybags from a naturalized American's homeland, can you?
Question: Should the US government do the Chinese government any
Absolutely, positively not. The US government should not do the
mainland Chinese government any favors whatsoever. Rabid Taiwanese
separatists take note, this means no favors for the Quisling Lee
private Chinese citizens or the Chinese government want from private
American citizens or the American government must be paid for
in full, preferably in cold cash, preferably in advance.
trade is not a handout. Free trade is not a free lunch. Free trade
is merely the opportunity to fork over the market price for something
one wants to obtain in the marketplace. As consumers everywhere
know, the market price for highly desirable products or services
is often quite dear. But "There ain't no such thing as a
free lunch." If both the buyers and sellers are content,
no one else has any say in the matter.
coercing a foreign nation to "reform" under threat of
military intervention does NOT constitute doing their government
a favor. Not taking sides in a foreign nation's civil war does
NOT constitute doing their government a favor. Not violating foreign
businessmens' inalienable right to engage in free trade does NOT
constitute doing their government a favor.
federal government should not do ANY foreign regimes any favors.
Why not? Because the federal government's resources, from whence
any favors to foreign regimes would have to come, belongs to millions
of individual American citizens and taxpayers. They constitute
the hard-earned wealth of millions of individual Americans and
should never have been taken from us in the first place. They
should be returned to those individual Americans who earned it,
so that we may use the wealth as each of us individually sees
Warfare Statists, who ought to know better, in contrast to liberal
Welfare Statists, seem to have forgotten that free trade is a
fundamental human right, more basic to raw human survival than
free speech. Free trade is not a privilege conferred by the state,
but an inalienable natural right. Free trade is a human right
neither the American government has the right to deny American
citizens, nor the Chinese government has the right to deny Chinese
conservative Warfare Statists do not understand even this much
about the inseparable relationship between individual rights and
free trade, then what pray tell is the ideological difference
between them and communists, socialists and left liberal Welfare
Question: Doesn't "Humanitarian Intervention" increase
the amount of freedom in the world?
Not on your life.
Warfare Statists harbor the erroneous belief that "Humanitarian
Intervention" in less free foreign nations will be rewarded
by a net increase in the amount of freedom in the world as a whole.
Let's examine why conservative Warfare Statists' rosy scenario
is self delusion.
Warfare Statists are inclined to blank out any number of inconvenient
facts about "Humanitarian Intervention." Anyone who
knows anything about the way people learn, and I mean really learn,
know that most learning occurs at a subliminal, intuitive, nonlinear
level. Not by exhortation, but by example. Not by deduction, but
hypocritical convention of demanding that unwilling pupils "Do
as I say, not as I do" has never worked, does not work, and
will never work. Why? Because the power of living example trumps
insincere lip service every time. Lessons learned at gunpoint
about "human rights" will never teach the world genuine
respect for others' human rights. Instead the reluctant pupil
will internalize the unintended lesson that "Might makes
Perry is an early example. American gunboat diplomacy failed utterly
to teach feudal Japan the value of American respect for the individual.
Instead it inculcated Japan with the delusion that the only game
in town was to beat westerners at their own game of high tech
imperialism. Feudal Japan became fascist Japan. Republican America
meanwhile became Imperial America.
of increasing the amount of freedom in the world, Perry decreased
it. One relatively free nation, America, intervened to "impose
freedom" on a less free nation, feudal Japan. The result?
A less free America AND a less free Japan. American military intervention
in Japan accomplished the remarkable but dubious feat of simultaneously
reducing freedom in both Asia and America. Instead of two free
nations, the world wound up with two LESS free nations. A lose/lose
formula if ever there was one. As James Madison observed, "Of
all the enemies to public liberty war, is, perhaps, the most to
is a more recent example. Yeltsin is currently using the identical
tactics against the Chechens that Clinton and Blair employed against
Milosevic in Kosovo. Nato and the Pentagon certainly taught everyone
in the Balkans a lesson. The only problem is it isn't the lesson
the Guardians of the New World Order had in mind. What Nato's
"Bombing for Peace" taught Russia, China, India, Pakistan,
and God only knows who else, is that "Might makes Right,"
and that anybody who doesn't want what happened to Milosevic's
Serbia to happen to them had better acquire or enhance their capacity
for strategic deterrence.
of course, there is China.
failed to learn the lessons of history with feudal Japan, conservative
Warfare Statists are repeating their earlier Asian misadventure
with China. Fortunately Chinese political culture is very different
from Japanese samurai/fascist political culture, and it is extremely
unlikely post-communist China will go down the same road as post-Perry
moves to "contain" China will however have the perverse
effect of delaying China's political liberalization. A Beijing
unthreatened by western hegemony is prepared to allow considerably
more freedom of domestic political expression than a Beijing which
perceives foreign colonialists poised to take advantage of China
in the event increased political freedom leads to widespread chaos.
China remembers only too clearly what fate almost befell her during
the late Ching dynasty, when internal disarray almost led to China's
permanent partition by opportunistic Japanese, European and American
evangelist Reverend Ike used to preach that "The way to help
the poor is not to be one of them." The way for America to
help less free nations of the world is not to be one of them.
Americans can promote American values best by being a living example
of our way of life at home, demonstrating that our system works,
and works beautifully, instead of ramming our values down foreigners'
throats at gunpoint. Actions, as the cliché goes, speak
louder than words. Americans should make sure the lesson we're
presuming to teach is the one we're successfully living, not the
one we're merely talking about.