Posted on 09/24/2002 9:59:30 AM PDT by madeinchina
President Bush has just sent his post-9/11 version of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) to Congress. It is a very activist document that lays out what might properly be called the Bush Doctrine.
The NSS proclaims: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States and our allies and friends." These measures include "proactive counterproliferation efforts" that will "ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries." America will not wait to be attacked again as on 9/11, "to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
Undergirding this strategy is a commitment to global military supremacy. The NSS says, "The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy - whether a state or non-state actor - to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."
This rhetoric is all well and good, but it begs a key question: Will the United States continue to have the economic strength to undergird its Superpower status? The NSS looks at the world economy, but in a way that indicates those making defense policy and those making economic policy are living in two very different worlds.
Section VI of the NSS opens with the following statement: "A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world." This undifferentiated concept of "the rest of the world" fails to comprehend that American political dominance depends on its economic dominance. This flawed theme is continued in the next paragraph that begins, "We will promote economic growth and economic freedom beyond America's shores."
What about economic growth at home? Nowhere in this chapter is there any mention of promoting American industry, technology, or incomes, though it is claimed that U.S. policy should "foster the diffusion of technologies." All discussion is about "world" trends and the advantages other nations may gain by accepting "free market" principles.
There is one paragraph entitled "Help domestic industries and workers adjust," but it is about how "Trade adjustment assistance will help workers adapt to the change and dynamism of open markets." In other words, it deals with what happens to Americans when they lose their jobs because their industries have been destroyed by the tactics of foreign rivals.
The NSS economic section is entirely ideological and divorced from the framework of contending states and power politics that informs the rest of the document. Consider the following: "The concept of 'free trade' arose as a moral principle even before it became a pillar of economics."
This phrasing sounds oddly like the claim of 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat that "free trade means harmony of interests and peace between nations" and that "we place this indirect and social effect a thousand times above the direct or purely economic effect." If Bastiat were alive today, he would be leading protests against President Bush's defense policy as he did in his own day against military buildups and aggressive diplomacy.
The only hint of geopolitics in the economic section is as follows: "We want our allies to have strong economies." There is no mention about the economies of adversaries, except how the U.S. helped China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). There is no hint that the rise of Chinese capabilities - or those of any other country, could pose a national security danger. Nor is it noted that so-called European "allies" and major trading partners like France and Germany are opposed to U.S. foreign policy in many parts of the world; or that they work constantly to undermine the American economy through trade rivalry and disputes at the WTO.
The NSS goes on to claim, "If you can make something that others value, you should be able to sell it to them. If others make something that you value, you should be able to buy it. This is real freedom, the freedom for a person - or a nation - to make a living." The word "nation" was clearly tossed in for cover, as it does not fit the document's central national security theme. It reflects the classical liberal notion that all commerce should be treated as a private affair, without regard to any larger consequences even when foreign interests are involved. Statesmen cannot think in these petty terms and still fulfill their responsibilities to protect the larger interests of their lands and people.
The classical liberal tradition has a long intellectual history, but it is one of unrelieved failure. Its greatest victim was the British Empire, which a century ago stood astride the world as President Bush would like the United States to do today. Yet, within a lifetime, the work of centuries was lost as London dropped from Superpower to also ran.
At its peak, London had a doctrine of military supremacy based on the "two power standard." The Royal Navy would be kept larger than the fleets of any two other powers combined. The policy was motivated by the same desire as President Bush "to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up." However, as other powers closed the gap with British industrial capacity, it became impossible to maintain that military advantage.
England is a stark example of how a great power can decline if it allows its economic base to fall out from under it through the adoption of a "free trade" outlook that ignores the connection between industry, wealth, and power.
Two days before the NSS became public, the International Monetary Fund issued a report warning that the U.S. trade deficit is unsustainable. The IMF expressed concern that America's chronic trade deficit has increased the nation's net foreign debt to about 20% of its gross domestic product. Few countries have been able to carry foreign debts of that magnitude for long. Currency devaluation and an economic downturn are the usual result of such poor trade management, both of which would knock the props out from under American world leadership.
Rather than address America's international trade and financial crisis, the NSS embraces a nonsensical approach to economics that guarantees to turn the crisis into a calamity. The nation's $400 billion plus trade deficit is the largest 'weapon of mass destruction' ever to hit America, but the Bush administration cannot say that the warning signs were lost in the clutter.
Bullocks, England declined in the 20th century because:
* It became socialist and protectionist, which hindered growth and let the US outpace it
* It engaged in a very, very stupid and destructive war, the consequences of which brought about another stupid and destructive war
Two days before the NSS became public, the International Monetary Fund issued a report warning that the U.S. trade deficit is unsustainable. The IMF expressed concern that America's chronic trade deficit has increased the nation's net foreign debt to about 20% of its gross domestic product. Few countries have been able to carry foreign debts of that magnitude for long. Currency devaluation and an economic downturn are the usual result of such poor trade management, both of which would knock the props out from under American world leadership.
* The "trade deficit" is a myth. Doesn't exist.
* Protectionism CAUSES currency devaluation, because it hinders imports, which brings less US dollars into foreign hands, who have less US currency to spend on US goods, which brings a decline in the USD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.