Without the current and past American security umbrella, for instance, I believe much of Asia would be a far less free place than it is today, starting but not ending with Taiwan and South Korea.
I give Tyler credit for raising this issue in a forum least likely to be sympathetic to it. This is Brink Lindsey’s growth forum hosted by Cato, where Brink is inviting contributions from the liberaltarian crowd.
I have to say that when looking at places like Russia, Hungary, or the Middle East, my appreciation for the civilization vs. barbarism axis tends to increase. On my list of books to sample (not necessarily read the whole thing) is Bret Stephens’ latest, where he argues that the U.S. should act as the world’s policeman. I wonder whether he explains how the U.S. could do that without also becoming the world’s social worker.
UPDATE: Here is how Stephens starts out:
Where do you fall on the spectrum between internationalists and neoisolationists? Ask yourself the following questions:
Does the United States have a vital interest in the outcome of the civil war in Syria, or in Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, or in Saudi Arabia’s contest with Iran?
Should Americans take sides between China and Japan over which of them exercises sovereignty over the uninhabited Senkaku Islands? Similarly, should we care whether Ukraine or Russia controls Crimea?
Is America more secure or less secure for deploying military forces in hot spots such as the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea?
My views on these issues are mixed. On the Middle East, I see the Syrian civil war as barbarism vs. barbarism. Similarly, the contest between Saudi Arabia and Iran. On Israel and the Palestinians, I understand that many people explain the Palestianians’ barbaric behavior as being caused by oppression, but I see it more the other way around. They could end oppression by being less barbaric. And I believe that the U.S. ought to support civilization in that contest.
On the second issue, my memories of the Vietnam era are salient enough to make me wary of pushing conflict on the basis of domino theory. Uninhabited islands strike me as dominoes that can be allowed to fall. Note that Stephens in effect equates Crimea to uninhabited islands, which suggests that it, too, is a domino that should be allowed to fall. I do not think that caving in there means that next thing you know Putin will be at the gates of Paris.
I think we are more secure for deploying military forces in the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea. If you press me, I will tell you that I believe that the U.S. navy and air support are the true world government, and without world government we would have major war.
If you think that pacifism and non-interventionism are ways of preventing major war, you have company. But my concern is that those policies only work if there is someone else doing the work of the world’s policeman. Being Swiss seems fine now, but if the U.S. had not intervened in World War II, it might not have been so peachy. And ultimately not so peachy for the U.S., either.
UPDATE: I wrote the foregoing before yesterday’s massacre in Jerusalem. If I have my geography right, the attack took place far inside the 1967 borders. It is an area where young observant American Jews go to study. The sight of Palestinians celebrating cold-blooded murder is something that I cannot put out of my mind. Even the Germans did not celebrate when they murdered Jews.
May as well state my views, some of them disagree. My heuristic is mostly the support of order over chaos (as part of the larger civilization vs barbarism frame). Therefore in Syria we support Assad, Saudi Arabia vs Iran we support neither too much since both destabilize the region (slight preference toward Saudi Arabia, past loyalties), Israel vs Palestine is straightforward support Israel (though against provocative Israeli movements).
We shouldn’t care about the Senkaku Islands until they become a threat to regional stability, and honestly I don’t see it yet. Region is polarizing into the Middle Kingdom vs everyone else, but no war. In that sense I oppose the Russian seizure of Crimea mostly because it destabilized the region; but Ukraine can’t seem to get it’s act together either.
If deploying military forces in hot spots promotes stability, it is good, if not, it is bad.
I of course recognize that predicting the future is hard. But simple order seems vastly underrated in framing these issues.
I’m interested by your comment that “I have to say that when looking at places like Russia, Hungary, or the Middle East, my appreciation for the civilization vs. barbarism axis tends to increase.”
I would say that fits well with Frank Meyer’s unfortunately-labeled fusionism, where a world in which we care the freedom-coercion axis is the product of development on the civilization-barbarian axis, and that those who are willing to blow away the latter to focus on the former run the risk of losing both. His solution to this is to place political libertarianism within a larger philosophical conservatism.
Is that an association you would agree with? You’ve said before that the three-axis model is particular to America and to America today, so I suppose this is kind of a theory of why it is what it is in America today, or at least a partial theory.
To me it’s sort of a Maslow’s hierarchy analogy. At the bottom of the hierarchy is barbarism, with its indiscriminate violence and general lawlessness, which is awful and thus needs to be defeated by whatever means are available. Once this is accomplished, and civilization is established and relatively stable, then one can go about reducing the prevalence of coercion in order to promote individual liberty and voluntary interaction between individuals and groups.
I think that’s where libertarians sometimes err, in thinking that, to pick a recent example, removing a Hussein or a Mubarak type strongman will result in a civil society flourishing. In places where civil society is weak, you’re more likely to get the opposite: the state’s monopoly on violence collapses and suddenly lots of people want to try their hand at it. Doug North’s writing on the natural state probably gets at what I’m trying to say a lot more cogently.
I was under the impression that, far from its lack of population being the/a primary factor with regard to the dispute over the Senkakus, it was, as Wikipedia indicates, that fairly recently (1970s) that subsurface area has displayed evidence of the existence of oil reserves. Wikipedia also says that “the territory is close to key shipping lanes and rich fishing grounds….”
IIRC, it was (among other things) our embargo of oil shipments to Japan, and the blocking of Japan’s territorial expansion in the far East (“Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”), one of the goals of which was to secure oil and raw materials required for growing its industrial and military forces, that motivated it to attack the U.S. and enter the nascent world conflict with Germany & Russia.
The alignment of erstwhile enemies, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Burma and Korea against the territorial expansion and farther-flung military aspirations of China would seem to indicate that those countries deem the ownership of the Senkakus, et al., of great importance to their peaceful existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
Of course, there is the view that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the obvious downside to the Team America: World Police regime. That absent American (and European) meddling, various conflicts around the globe would have been resolved or at least reached some sort of stable equilibrium. But since the American creed of ‘violence is bad except for when we sanction it’ prevails, certain conflicts tend to fester and tensions build on both sides.
Plus, you’ve got the reverse of that, where certain conflicts are egged on by naïve, idealistic, western internationalists, resulting in victories for barbarism. The prime example here being Libya, which is now a lawless, failed state, thanks in large part to the Obama administration.
But then again, how much worse off would Asia today be without American intervention in the Korean War? How much better off would it be if the US military had been as successful in stopping communism in Vietnam as it was stopping Japanese Imperialism in WWII? It’d be nice if there were easy answers here, but I don’t think we’re going to find any.
“I believe that the U.S. ought to support civilization in [the Israel-Palestine] contest.”
Both the Jews and the Muslims are guilty in Palestine/Israel. Siding with one or the other is not in our interest, unless we ourselves are Jewish or irrationally pro-Jewish.
But if we insist on supporting the terrorists in Israel over the terrorists in Palestine, why not also support the Syrian government’s campaign to crush ISIS? And so on.
Of course, many people do believe that if they have to choose between the Syrian government and ISIS, the Syrian government is the lesser of two evils. It’s like choosing between Hitler and Stalin in 1941.
You don’t think therr are parts of Israeli society that celebrate the killing of Palestinians? https://mobile.twitter.com/raniakhalek/status/493865687677693954
The sentiment may be more wide-spread and acceptable in Palestinian society, but there is a significant part of Israeli society drifting toward the “barbarism” end of the axis
Excellent point. I can only hope the author finds it equally troubling when he witnesses images of Israeli hate-crimes.
> On the Middle East, I see the Syrian civil war as barbarism vs. barbarism.
Alas, were it only that simple. The Middle East is not Las Vegas. What happens there does not stay there. Anyone who thinks otherwise… well. Memories are short, but I’m surprised by how short they have been in this instance. Unfortunately, in the event we get another reminder, it will already be too late.
They could end oppression by being less barbaric. Palestinians have been using the tactic of randomly killing Jews in Palestine since 1921 (i.e. decades before there was an Israel). It has never worked for them, yet it keeps being the celebrated (and apparently preferred) tactic.
Of course, prolonged conflict is likely to have a morally coarsening effect on both sides. But Palestinian society is toxic in lots of ways, which apparently preclude anything resembling serious negotiations (as Ehud Barak found at Camp David and then Olmert in 2008). Israeli opinion has apparently shifted to simply not believing that any peace with the Palestinians is to be had. But if one does not look seriously at Palestinian society, then one can not make sense of that.
So, we end up with “SuperJews” who apparently can just wave a magic wand and turn the Palestinians into effective peace partners. I don’t believe in SuperJews, but it is amazing how many people effectively do.
Re: U.S. as world’s policeman. The United States was founded on the premise that it would be a nation built on commerce. The Navy was established for the most part to ensure that our commercial vessels would travel to & from foreign ports unmolested. It was not established to conquer territory, nor to spread the virtues of constitutional republican governance. The primary purpose of the U.S. Navy is & has always been to secure the global shipping lanes.
Not less than when Nantucket whalers were sailing the oceans in search of right whales, we still need global protection for our container ships to ply the seas, delivering raw materials for manufacture in China & elsewhere, and returning goods to sell to American consumers. Trade is what has made this country rich beyond even the dreams of the Founders.
For us to relinquish that role as protector of trade is to condemn us to a poorer existence in the future. Unless and until another nation presents itself as a neutral protective power (and who else has the resources?), we must fill that role.
Mark Tempest posted a map of the trading routes in connection with another matter: take a look and consider the possibility of trade interruptions.
http://www.eaglespeak.us/2014/11/al-qaeda-threatens-ocean-chokepoints.html
Why isn’t it “Tyler Cowen, Objectivist”?
And did anyone followup with “at what cost?”
South Korea is free. And? It’s nice. I appreciate that they contribute a few professional Starcraft players to the e-sports scene, and of course I wish them well, but so what?
Btw, how much of North Korea being unfree is due to the dialectic nature of conflict? And for the Middle East, what if the great Satan just wished everyone well instead of picking sides? We make one side a little more free, but at what cost across the border? Our prior delusions that we could make the world free didn’t work out so well for Russia, Vietnam, etc.