US foreign policy over the past fifty years (whether Democratic or Republican), has been characterised by consensus on certain fundamental points.
Chief among these is the notion that American power ought to be used as a force for ‘good’ in the world. Another key tenet accepted by the political establishment is that terrorist attacks are motivated by religious fanaticism and hatred of American values rather than practical grievances. Various scholars have contended, however, that the planks of foreign policy accepted by the mainstream are flawed. In the first place, how can American power be a force for good when the revenue to fund state wars is acquired through coercive taxation, and is thus objectionable from an ethical standpoint? The taxation required to finance interventions constitutes a burden on the productive private sector and is hardly a force for good in the domestic sphere. Mark Crovelli further points out intervening states are themselves illegitimate and may be a danger to those they claim to protect. Moreover, just as government involvement in economic affairs can produce unintended consequences, so too can military interventions lead to unexpected results. Writers such as Chalmers Johnson and Michael Scheuer have suggested that terrorists attack the US not due to an innate opposition to democracy and freedom, but because of resentment at American actions abroad. Operations pursued overseas have led to ‘blowback’ against Americans, most notably on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden cited US support for Israel and repressive Arab regimes, the stationing of troops on the ‘holy land’ of Saudi Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians as specific grievances motivating the 9/11 attacks. The belief that al Qaeda is motivated by opposition to Western systems of government or culture has led many to support measures such as the PATRIOT Act without pondering the implications for civil liberties. The Act greatly expands the scope of police power. Such an approach does not make much sense however, if one accepts the contentions of Johnson and Scheuer. Instead of curbing civil liberties and moving the US away from the rule of law, it would be better to address the root of the terrorists’ discontent: America’s military presence in the Middle East. This means withdrawing troops from that region, ending foreign aid to Arab regimes and generally pursuing a policy of non-interventionism. The foreign policy establishment resists non-interventionism. Their analyses invariably propose aggressive deployments and strict sanctions to deter so-called rogue states. The problem with the establishment perspective is that it places the US on a permanent war footing by embroiling the military in sectarian conflicts that could be resolved at the local level. This has adverse effects on liberty. War increases the size and scope of government: the military-industrial complex is kept well fed under the establishment policy however average citizens suffer reductions in their standard of living. As Randolph Bourne explains, ‘War is the health of the state’. A common retort is that non-interventionists are naïve about the potential for nuclear weapons to be acquired by terrorists or used by rogue states. However the non-interventionist is in favour of unilateral free trade, meaning that rogue states would be engaged rather than isolated. Engagement, especially with respect to trade and finance, tends to increase interdependency and reduces the chances of war. China will be less eager to attack the US if it has a productive trading relationship with the American people. However the Chinese will feel few qualms about invading a protectionist third-world nation that is of minor economic importance. States are unlikely to launch a nuclear first-strike because they have a home address and can be wiped out with brute force. The theory of ‘mutually assured destruction’ thus has an important place in devising strategy against rogue states. But what about terrorists, who have no fixed location and engage in guerrilla warfare? It is improbable that a terrorist organisation could acquire a nuclear weapon. Benjamin Friedmanwrites: “The possibility that terrorists will soon manufacture nuclear or biological weapons and kill us in droves is remote. The difficulty of making nuclear and biological weapons is generally understated”. Leaders of rogue states know that if they were discovered to pass on such weapons to terrorist groups, they would soon be deposed by the US military, and so are unlikely to risk doing so. There is consequently little reason to pursue a policy premised on global interventionism. It is important to scale back military bases around the world in order to preserve liberty at home.
0 Comments
The Australian federal government largely controls foreign policy, monetary policy and selection of High Court justices. These subjects are where the executive branch has discretionary or agenda-setting power and could make many changes without waiting for parliamentary approval:
1. Foreign policy: As Randolph Bourne suggested, ‘war is the health of the state’ and grows the size and scope of government, thereby diminishing individual liberty under a crushing burden of welfare and warfare programs. The government should stop being bogged down overseas, and instead focus on establishing a defensive perimeter in consultation with neighbouring countries. Defence spending should be frozen in real terms and anti-terrorism laws suppressing civil liberties should be repealed. 2. Monetary policy is under the supervision of the Treasury, whose representative sits on the Reserve Bank of Australia board. The inflation tax – an unrelenting rise in prices at the expense of the poor and middle-class – is pernicious in its effects and circumscribes the health and wealth of individuals; in other words, their freedom. The government should freeze the monetary base or implement a Milton Friedman style monetary rule to increase predictability (these are second-best solutions; the best would be to shift to free banking). Accountability and transparency underlying the bank’s reasoning must be improved. 3. Selection of High Court judges has lasting effects given the retirement age of 70, so the choice of a strict constitutionalist (one who believes in original intent as a method of interpretation) must be made. Just as contracts are interpreted with reference to the intention of the parties, so too should the Constitution. Departure from traditional legal principles is what has undermined federalism and ultimately prosperity. These areas should be the top priorities for libertarians wanting more freedom in Australia. In 2003 the United Nations Children's Fund released a revised edition of an assessment on the state of young people in Iraq. Among many harrowing conclusions was the mistreatment of women, pervasive malnutrition among children, and disturbing statistics showing that infant mortality in Iraq was high 107 per 1,000 live births and was over double what it was at the end of 1980. Save the Children estimates that close to 90 per cent of all injuries and deaths during war are sustained by civilians, mostly women and children.
Young people around the world have heeded the call for help: hundreds are volunteering their time and skills to aid in the co-ordination of resources in Iraq. Brendan Lund, a 26-year old who involved himself in helping Iraqis through the Coalition Provisional Authority, explains the reality on the ground: "The majority of Iraqis support the effort. They don't want the US here forever but they know that they need us now." As Iraqi expatriates slowly trickle back to rebuilding efforts, they face an Iraq where tensions between ethnic groups are running high and adrenaline is flowing freely. There are 12 million people in Iraq under the age of 19 more than half the country's population who need our constructive support. In this regard, small improvements in quality of life matter especially if it improves the lives of the very young, who didn't ask to be born orphaned, or even ask to be born, into the volatile environment created by grown-ups. What is as shocking as witnessing beggars without arms plying their trade? It's seeing children in tattered clothes, roaming the streets and not going to school; this is a sight I hope would soon cease to exist in the new Iraq. In October 2003, the International Donors' Conference on Reconstruction in Iraq resulted in a pledge of financial assistance of over $US 33 billion by 73 countries, 20 international organisations and 13 non-governmental organisations. This was real progress. Withdrawing troops by Christmas however, as a Labor government has announced it would do, is a step in the wrong direction. No wonder then, that so many pundits have predicted another major terrorist attack between now and Election Day could tip odds overwhelmingly in favour of the Liberals. It baffles me that public opinion is still divided on the issue of plans for a future Iraq. Robert Horvath in 'The Age' was absolutely right: for all the criticisms made by anti-war commentators about the decision to go to war in Iraq, these same critics have been either strangely silent or have conveniently played down positives arising from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Therefore, despite lip service by cynics, Iraq is undoubtedly a golden opportunity to instil a government for the people, by the people. A stable democracy in the Middle East is beneficial in two main ways. One, it gives an equal voice to people of all faiths, including Muslims. Thus a representative democracy takes into account conflicting views and adjusts accordingly. Minority groups are given a fair say, and can voice their opinions in a public forum without having to resort to kidnappings or extortion to gain attention. Two, it provides the Western world with an invaluable link to the Middle East. Hence, a friendly relationship with an elected Iraqi government is likely to mean better relations with neighbouring countries too. The modern state of Iraq arose in 1920 as part of the peace settlement after World War I. However, it was explored (and exploited) by the Iraq Petroleum Company, a conglomerate of British, Dutch, French and U.S. oil interests. Constant British influence ensured the government was never really in tune with the people of Iraq. If the "coalition of the willing" is serious about helping Iraqis, it will follow through on its many promises to guarantee such a situation does not occur again. Knowing his democratic ideals, Thomas Jefferson would undoubtedly have advocated that the will of the people must reign supreme: any hint of unrest could result in another coup; a power vacuum could mean another authoritarian regime. In light of the fact that the United Nations is fully backing current efforts by the coalition in Iraq, it's high time Western public opinion made a decisive choice: to continue to flog the dead horse of an "unjustified" and conspiratorial war, or to move on and support a humanitarian military presence (for the waging of peace) by contributing to aid efforts for the victims of war. The children of Iraq anxiously await your decision. Note: This article was written at a time when I agreed with the foolish neo-conservative goal of invading Iraq and changing the world through force and doesn't reflect my current opinion. Americans must wonder why other Western nations have not had frequent terrorist attacks. Australia, Sweden and Switzerland for example, are rarely the targets of domestic terrorism. If the terrorists universally hate free and democratic nations, why is this?
Chalmers Johnson has written a book titled Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire that tries to find the answer to this anomaly. He focuses on evaluating the extent to which American foreign policy inspires terrorism. Most of the book is based around supporting his central assertion of something called blowback: "a term the CIA invented to describe the likelihood that [American] covert operations in other people's countries would result in retaliations against Americans, civilian and military, at home and abroad." For Johnson it is no mystery. Terrorists generally don't dislike America for what it represents (material wealth and democracy), but for what the American government does in foreign nations. Indeed, one of Osama bin Laden's grievances was the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Yet the US did not withdraw its troops until 2003, despite repeated terrorist attacks (that is, blowback) throughout the 1990s. Somehow neither Democrats nor Republicans understood the message from the terrorists: we don't want you interfering in our internal affairs, leave us alone. The good that came from eventually withdrawing American troops from Saudi Arabia has now been negated by waging two unnecessary and constitutionally suspect wars in the heart of the Middle East. Again, one observes the common American government practice of meddling in other nations. A consistent theme of American foreign policy has been picking winners - usually incorrectly. In Afghanistan, the Americans funded the Taliban in the 1980s, but then changed their mind after September 11 and came back and supported the opposition Northern Alliance. Picking winners is a favourite habit of governments in the economic realm, and it is also evident in foreign policy. But picking winners also means the losers begin to resent you. While distaste for American values or religious fervour might be a propaganda tool terrorists use to motivate followers, the underlying tension is created by foreign policy actions taken by the American government, starting with the CIA's overthrow of the Iranian leader in 1953. Since that time, American policy has become increasingly interventionist, and the CIA has engaged in numerous clandestine operations that many Americans would be appalled of, if they knew what went on in their name. Johnson wrote the first edition of his book before the September 11 attacks. In it, he correctly predicted acts of retaliation upon US interests. His argument is that everyone reaps what they sow; the worst blowback from the 20th century, and more recently from Iraq and Afghanistan, is yet to come. The thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed due to American "friendly fire" have families. Even if we in the West forget these Iraqi deaths, their families won't. The terrorists will capitalise on the resentment against Americans to gain financial support. This means Americans should prepare for the hatred their government has recently generated in the Middle East. It means there will almost certainly be another major terrorist attack on American soil 5-10 years down the track. Sadly, more American citizens have died in Iraq than were killed on September 11. It is time America reverted to a humble foreign policy that focuses on securing American democracy and liberty, before it justifies billions of dollars and thousands of lives by citing false security concerns or the need to install democracy by force in other nations. Blowback is real, and the quicker Americans understand this, the quicker America can stop being a target for terrorism. Former Indian intelligence chief Ajit Doval admits the experts have failed, yet offers the same solutions that have not worked in the past.
On the 11th of March, I attended a lecture by Ajit Doval held at the University of Melbourne’s Australia-India Institute. Doval spoke on ‘The Challenges of Global Terrorism’ – a topic that he is eminently qualified to speak on given his past role as director of India’s Central Intelligence Bureau. Assuming one believes the official story about the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden by the American military, it would be tempting to think that we are entering an era of safety and that groups such as al-Qaeda are on the brink of being defeated. However according to Doval, such a view is the opposite of the truth. To the contrary, it is time to brace ourselves for a world that is more unsafe than the world which existed prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are several reasons for Doval’s pessimistic outlook. First, there are the tens of thousands in North Africa and the Middle East who support al-Qaeda and its objectives. The organization has become stronger and its reach now extends further. Al-Qaeda now operates as an almost global organization, despite the efforts of the American Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and equivalent agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia. The American-led war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda’s leadership has hurt the organization, yet Doval is worried about what will happen once Western forces have withdrawn from the Middle East: “We thought the antidote (to global terrorism) was cutting off their finances, and the people’s support, but it turns out the antidote was really denying them sanctuaries. They have had sanctuaries in Pakistan in the past. Now if they get a Taliban-influenced government in Afghanistan they could get sanctuaries in Afghanistan again and the situation could be very serious.” Despite spending billions of dollars and sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives, experts such as Doval admit that anti-terrorism efforts have not led to stellar results. Yet Doval does not appear to offer any solutions apart from doing more of the same. He wants the US to be harsher on Pakistan for harbouring terrorists, for there to be greater international cooperation and for intelligence capability to be significantly enhanced. But these are all attempts at tinkering with a system that needs radical root-and-branch reform. Doval and other intelligence chiefs appear to have forgotten one of the fundamental rules of solving crimes – the importance of establishing a motive. In order to ensure the ‘War on Terrorism’ is more successful than the ‘War on Drugs’ or the ‘War on Crime’, that is, in order for it to lead to a definite outcome rather than continuing on indefinitely for another 100 years, it is imperative that the underlying reasons for terrorism be addressed. There is a wealth of research largely ignored by the heads of the major intelligence agencies that directly addresses the question of how best to prevent individuals from turning to terrorism in the first place. Much of this scholarship is by individuals with significant experience in counter-terrorism and policing. Michael Scheuer – a former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit – argues that Islamic terrorists are angered by America’s support for corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments, Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula, Western support for Israel, American pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants. In other words, Islamic terror groups are not all irrational religious fanatics. They have rational objectives that capitalize on the public resentment caused by Western meddling in the internal affairs of Arab nations. Such meddling has led to many atrocities against residents who are then inspired to support insurgent groups. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib prison, torture, rapes by American and British soldiers and collateral damage caused by drone strikes are just the tip of an iceberg that goes back to America’s overthrow of the democratically appointed leader of Iran in 1953. It is practical concerns such as these that have allowed al-Qaeda to thrive. Scheuer’s thesis is supported by Robert Pape of the University of Chicago. Based on an analysis of 315 suicide attacks between 1980 to 2003, Pape finds “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions...Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”. This ‘logic’ of suicide terrorism applies just as well in Sri Lanka as it does in the US, Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Lasting gains against terrorism will require all nations to truly understand their enemy. From this understanding will arise a strategy for reducing the support that groups such as al-Qaeda obtain from the public in Arab nations. This can be done without appeasing terrorists, giving up legitimate strategic targets or compromising national security. |
AuthorSubscribe to my newsletter and Youtube channel. Categories
All
Archives
November 2022
|