-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/pageone.html
<A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times
- Volume 2 Issue 44</A>
The Laissez Faire City Times
December 28, 1998 - Volume 2, Issue 44
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
-----
A Noninterventionist Revival
by Michael R. Allen
Though the United States-Britain alliance has halted its air strikes in
Iraq, and the issue of war may seem deferred at present, as Christians
celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace on Christmas, irony sets in:
over 60 Iraqis are being buried and the count continues to rise.
American politicians have attempted to brush aside the issue or downplay
their real opinion of the Clinton foreign policy to celebrate "support
for the troops" (a rather cowardly phrase that is used to discredit
opponents of war). A meek resolution supporting the troops and the
continued condemnation of Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, passed the
House 417-5.
Both Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)
opposed the air strikes, but both muted their stands to play politics.
Lott came out to support military action under certain conditions, and
Conyers defended President Bill Clinton from impeachment even though he
supported impeaching Presidents Nixon and Reagan for their acts of war.
The only politicians to articulate firm anti-war stands lately have also
been a trio representing two different political ideologies. One is
unreconstructed liberal Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who issued a press
release on her vote against the resolution, stated boldly: "I oppose any
resolution that suggests that another sovereign government should be
overthrown."
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) properly criticized recent American
presidents who "have run roughshod over weak-kneed congressional
leaders." And, as usual, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) -- who is described by
the America First Committee as "the Congressional leader of the new
antiwar movement" -- blasted what he described as "jingoism and
militarism" and called for the President's resignation.
Some other politicians became less eager to support continuing the
Clinton administration's military policy after the failure of the air
strikes was evident. In response to a question from me, Rep. Tom
Campbell (R-Calif.) said that while he supported a UN resolution urging
the removal of Hussein from power, he "questioned from the start what we
hoped to accomplish with this bombing." Former Republican Congressman
Jack Kemp, surprisingly, questioned our whole foreign policy in a letter
to Sen. Lott, and urged Congressional hearings on the bombings. More
formidable opposition came with condemnations from the Vatican, Iran,
Cambodia, Russia, and China.
Yet the whole bombing campaign ended as suddenly as it started. However,
a positive side effect is that again there seemed to be a revival of the
military isolationist movement. The old coalition of peacenik liberals,
nationalist conservatives, humanitarians, and libertarians was reunited,
as it was earlier this year when Iraq was also an issue. As it did in
1991 at the onset of the original Gulf War, the motley group included
voices as divergent as Howard Zinn and Pat Buchanan.
If the issue of war is to remain deferred and peace and freedom are
brought to earth, then the old policy of isolationism deserves to be
re-examined. So far, the United States has for decades not followed the
military isolationism coupled with free trade that would best serve US
interests. Most conservatives see aggression as a needed deterrent in
foreign policy, while those on the Left have gone from promoting nearly
no military to protecting the enshrined military establishment. There
are few who think that the US should protect itself and abandon its
foreign assistance programs.
The US ought to maintain its economic standing among the nations of the
world while withdrawing its resources so as to protect its own lands.
With all of the conflict in the world, US involvement only complicates
what are generally local situations. Theoretically, conflicts are solved
by the parties involved either through warfare or political doctrine.
Thus, third parties like the United States (generally partial in most
situations) are only intervening so that they can manipulate the
outcomes in the world's wars.
The Clinton administration's treatment of Haiti and Bosnia clearly shows
how the State Department can ensure their control in these nations.
Though not quite as serious, this system of "satellite" nations takes
power away from a small nation's people and puts it in the greedy paws
of large countries. It is vital to a peaceful world that each nation be
allowed to set its own goals and determine the best route to attaining
them without being forced to comply with another nation's idea.
Yet it is so typical of American interventionists to believe that they
know the best for everyone else; this is apparent when even other
nations begin to take US armed forces for granted. It is all but
announced that any peace agreements in the Israel-Palestine conflict
will require American "police action." Which side receives more aid is
uncertain; Clinton has continued to send millions of dollars to Israel
(which launched its own air strike on Syria a few days after the Iraq
bombings, resulting in three deaths) but has been all to eager to
tacitly endorse the recreation of a Palestinian state. Regardless of
that outcome, our nation can only do harm under its present
intervention. The United States has deeply disturbed the Middle East
with a strategy sometimes protecting oil interests and other times
pandering to special-interest groups. Of late, the continued military
persecution of Iraq -- while Serbia and China are handled diplomatically
-- has shown how duplicitous the policy is in that region.
A noninterventionist can only applaud an orderly and peaceful world, but
must also realize that decisions are best left to the individual
nations. Realistically, UN intervention only temporarily halts worldwide
conflicts. Foreign aid of any kind is a misguided attempt of
supplicating rogues that have no respect for our country. Private-sector
aid is preferable in every case as it is a genuine gift with little
political strings attached. Free trade and private investment are
commensurable with peaceful, docile nations. Military and monetary
deployments are not only anathema to the true sovereign rights of
nations but are also explosive ways of enraging belligerent nations
while encouraging some to become subservient to the protector.
A destructive influence on foreign policy has been a group of foreign
policy experts who assume that it is our right to tell other countries
what to do (with a disorderly opposition that invites ridicule). These
"experts" range from academic types to businessmen and quasi-capitalist
bankers, who fill the rolls of organizations such as the Council on
Foreign Relations. All aim for one-world government, as it is easier for
them to prescribe their narrow solutions to the world en masse than on a
country-by-country basis. Many people have called these people part of a
conspiracy, which they might be if one is to use the denoted definition
of "conspiracy." However, it is to be noted that they have not assumed
control of the world, they merely have been invited to the upper posts
of influence. Since constitutionalists and libertarians do not wish to
have an activist governmental foreign affairs apparatus, they generally
avoid working in such positions. Thus, those who wish to continue the
direction of the world's foreign policy are the only ones willing to
work for their own creation.
On a semantic matter, I wish to stress that my use of the term
"isolationist" refers to military isolation, not the sort of
protectionism that seeks to impede the voluntary trade contract. Free
trade is the only option in the free society. As a matter of fact, to
trade freely is a right of free individuals that has been respected
since the days of ancient history. Though few ancient civilizations can
be called free, one of the reasons cultures blended so swiftly to bring
about the global communication we enjoy today is due to the exchange of
goods between cultures.
As important a medium trade is for cultural exchange, it also is a
voluntary compact between two parties. If property ownership is a right
originating from man's self-ownership and his attachment of ownership
rights to anything he freely accepts or legally acquires, then the
exchange of that right in a trade relationship can only be degraded if
there is a tariff, or embargo, or sanction. There are sanctions against
Iraq which are far more threatening than any bombing campaigns or petty
dictators. These sanctions might be thought to unravel the
noninterventionist coalition by splitting its protectionist and
libertarian wings. Yet, even Buchanan -- who has a less-than-friendly
attitude toward free trade -- asks "if constructive engagement was the
right policy for the Evil Empire, why is there no other way with Iraq
than total sanctions?"
If the coalition can hold fast as President Clinton and Prime Minister
Blair ask for tighter sanctions and military conditions, and as further
conflict with the Iraqi leader occurs, there may be hope for a rebirth
of an America that is neutral in all things foreign. While certain
elements of the foreign policy establishment, such as the International
Monetary Fund, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the United Nations
may be impossible to abolish outright, a change in policy would lead to
these agencies being unnecessary to the United States.
Discredited since World War II, the military isolationists may hope to
regain their dignity and win a few arguments if US foreign involvement
continues to produce bad results. The morality of World War II was
politically unable to be questioned. Fortunately for those who seek a
noninterventionist foreign policy, today's US involvement lacks the
patriotism of that war. Most of it also lacks the urgency of American
presence and outward support from the American public. Hopefully, these
factors will work in favor of the revival of noninterventionism -- and
produce some policy shifts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Allen is the editor of SpinTech Magazine and a columnist for
"Strange Disposed Times".
-30-
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 2, No 44, December 28, 1998
-----
The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is
published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of
Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its
founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city
of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news
publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For
information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by
Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc.
Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar
All Rights Reserved
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
