P. 1


|Views: 122|Likes:
Published by Roy M. Antoun
Young Americans for Liberty | Foreign Policy Handbook Issue II
Young Americans for Liberty | Foreign Policy Handbook Issue II

More info:

Published by: Roy M. Antoun on May 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Issue II | May 2010

“When you want to fool the world, tell the truth.”

Why Conservatives Should Hate Our Foreign Policy
Wesley Messamore

The War on Terror and Sun Tzu: Is American Strategy Sound?
Craig Dixon

Law or Hoax? Disproving Democratic Peace Theory
Roy Antoun

The European Union: Eurocrats and the Eurosphere
Elliot Engstrom

The Next Threat to American Sovereignty: China
Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta


The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy Handbook

May 2010

FEATURED | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010

The War on Terror and Sun Tzu:

Is American Strategy Sound?
Craig Dixon
―The problem, is that, America no longer seeks to end conflicts. America is attempting to build nations; America has protracted campaigns that are dulling the morale of both MiddleEastern citizens, and our own citizens... and giving our enemies tangible weaknesses to exploit.‖ CONTINUED P. 5

Why Conservatives Should

Our Foreign Policy
Wesley Messamore

Law or Hoax?
Democratic Peace Theory
Roy Antoun

Contents 3 Why Does NATO Still Exist?

Executive Director Jeff Frazee

By Jeremy Davis
5 The War on Terror and Sun Tzu: Is American Strategy Sound?

Editor in Chief Roy Antoun

By Craig Dixon
7 The European Union: Eurocrats and the Eurosphere

By Elliot Engstrom
9 The Next Threat to American Sovereignty: China

Contributors Wesley Messamore Nelson Chase Jeremy Davis Daniel Suraci Brandon DeMeo Craig Dixon

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta
10 Why Conservatives Should Hate Our Foreign Policy

By Wesley Messamore
12 Who Controls Our Foreign Policy?

By Brandon DeMeo
13 Law or Hoax? Disproving Democratic Peace Theory

By Roy Antoun
16 Explanations for Continued Terrorism: Globalization and Lack of Democracy

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta
19 Epic Fail: How International Financial Institutions Are the Causes of World Problems

Elliot Engstrom Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

By Daniel Suraci

YAL MISSION STATEMENT The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committed to "winning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direction of our government. YAL STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES We are the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). As Americans we recognize the God-given natural rights of life, liberty, and property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individual and directed by we the people. We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and conduct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace and prosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen. We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed and dragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlling grip. And, for this we do not stand.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Letter From the Editor
Dear Reader,
As the Realist theory on foreign policy evolved through history and the emergence of International Institutions posed a challenge to international individualism, the NeoRealist theory was born. Not to be confused with neoconservatism, Neo-Realism is competent international relations theory, not a misunderstanding of history applied to foreign policy. Ken Waltz, known as the godfather of Neo-Realism, acknowledges that international institutions exist; however, states join them only for self interest, not because they believe collective action works; and those that do believe that the collective is in any fashion effective, normatively see defeat or failure in the near future. Collective action and international institutions have been attempted for centuries. One can argue that standards such as the Napoleonic Code were primitive forms of international institutions; it was a contest of legitimacy to unite several European nation-states together under one common law. Not only did it fail, but it set a precedent for future international institutions. The Napoleonic Code of the early 19th century angered several European societies that truly believed in their own state sovereignty. . The League of Nations’ utter failure after the First World War proved yet again the irregularities of collectivism. The rule of a few to dictate the policies of many gave us Benito Mussolini and, lest we forget, Adolph Hitler. States will forever operate within the framework of their defined borders. They operate to ensure themselves power and security, even if it comes at the expense of others. As Machiavelli warned, those states that are too generous often empower those around them while weakening themselves. And that is precisely why collective action and international institutions inevitably fail. As of the past two decades, the United Nations and its numerous sanction-induced capabilities have angered government that propped up Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The United Nations was used as a laughable venue for war when the U.S. invaded Iraq. And although the U.N. has wonderful humanitarian intentions, its legitimacy as a tool to prevent war is comparable to that of a white flag with angry words written on it.

Roy M. Antoun

“Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth”
The objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American foreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected leaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interventionism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying the price in blood and gold. While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express the views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose any candidate for office.

Want to write for the Foreign Policy Handbook? Contact roy.antoun@yaliberty.org
http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH Find us on the web: http://yaliberty.org Find us on Facebook http://facebook.com/yaliberty Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/yaliberty

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 threat to any of its members constitutes a general response. The organization describes its current mission in that: ―As the nature of threats changes, so must the methods of preserving peace. NATO is reorienting its defense capabilities toward today’s threats. It is adapting its forces and developing new, multinational approaches to deal with terrorism, failed states and other security threats such as weapons of mass destruction.‖ And while most scholars in the field of international relations could not perceive a world without NATO’s involvement, many ardent critics of NATO’s mere existence have been questioning the When it was ratified on April 9, 1949 in very purpose of the organization, both then and Washington D.C., the North Atlantic Treaty brought now, and the consequences it brings. Senator into effect one of the largest miliRobert A. Taft, an old right Republican, was a suspitary alliance among nations in his- Jeremy Davis cious critic of NATO and thought that a post WWII tory. NATO’s purpose from the start was to sway the military alliance with European nations was a threat balance of power in favor of one of the two superto the security of the United States. As one of the powers at the time, the United States, in contrast to few voices of the day challenging imperialism and the other world superpower, the Soviet Union. Lord internationalism, Robert Taft Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary wasn’t comfortable in dedicating General once said that the organi- “And linking ourselves to the American soldiers to the affairs of zation’s primary goals were ―to quarrels of Europe is exactly European conflicts and felt that keep the Russians out, the Ameriwhat we have done.” the build up of a large internacans in, and the Germans down.‖ tional army would be a cause of NATO has since been proved a Cold War relic war with the Soviet Union rather than a deterrent. that should have seen its demise with the fall of the He believed that an alliance such as NATO Soviet Union in 1991. Unfortunately, just as other would serve as an unnecessary means of provoking governmental bureaucracies linger long after their the Soviets into war and thusly voted against its stated usefulness, so too did NATO overstay its welratification in the U.S. Senate. come. Our involvement in such international orToday, NATO remains nearly two decades ganizations and alliances like NATO have led to fuel after the decline of its stated adversaries in the the perpetual imperialistic machine that has become members of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Emour foreign policy; a foreign policy in which was pire. In the time since the soviet downfall, NATO warned against by many of our republic’s founders. has constantly been trying to redefine its mission in In his farewell address, outgoing president George order to justify its continual existence – mission Washington famously concluded that ―The great creep. rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is Without the threat of a Soviet Russian attack in extending our commercial relations, to have with long dead, NATO has now reestablished its mission them as little political connection as possible.‖ He in such broad terms that almost any perceived also went on to state that ―It is our true policy to
Photo courtesy of NATO

Why Does NATO Still Exist?

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements.‖ Thomas Jefferson reflected a similar belief in his support for a non-interventionist foreign policy when he said "I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." And linking ourselves to the quarrels of Europe is exactly what we have done. Supporters of NATO and those who would justify its continued existence or the further involvement of the United States would be quick to brush aside the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. More modern opponents to NATO such as Congressman Ron Paul defend the vision of the founder’s foreign policy and the dedication to refraining ourselves from entering entangling alliances. In opposing NATO’s involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in the 1990’s, Paul stated that ―Without the Soviet enemy to justify the European military machine, NATO had to find enemies and humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The centuries-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia and the militant leaders on all sides have served this purpose well.‖ NATO exists because the U.S. allows it to exist. It burdens our foreign policy both diplomatically and economically as it selectively promotes nation-building schemes that drain the budgets of member nations. Despite all the philosophical, moral, and practical justifications for why NATO should cease to exist, NATO survives today because those interested in maintaining it seek its benefits through imperialism and feeding corporatist needs through expansion in arm sales to newly added members of the organization.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

It survives because the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned Americans of calls for it; and expanding NATO provides the breathing room it needs to flourish. Today, NATO represents nothing more than an outdated, wasteful, imperialistic organization driven by a lust for military domination and remains a full fledged danger to American liberty. Did You Know?
A report on Sunday, February 21 revealed that a NATO airstrike killed 27 civilians in one of the worst charades of noncombatant deaths in Afghanistan.
Photo courtesy of NATO

This Month The War on Terror and Sun Tzu: Is American Strategy Sound? By Craig Dixon Why Conservatives Should Hate Our Foreign Policy By Wesley Messamore Law or Hoax? Disproving Democratic Peace Theory By Roy Antoun

Last Month’s Issue How to Solve the Middle East Problem Roy Antoun Obama’s Nuclear Policy is Just More Hyped Up “Change” Wesley Messamore


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Point/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 cal factions, both 'left' and 'right', that libertarians are too soft on war; it is said that libertarians fail to understand the necessary-evil of using military force to diffuse threats to liberty and safety. It must escape both political camps that libertarian rebels birthed the United States of America from the fires of war against the British Empire. Few Americans, libertarians included, will disagree that when there is clear and present danger to the security of American citizens, it is the role of the United States military to engage and diffuse those threats. However, libertarians also believe that these engagements should be quick, hard, and decisive... and then they should end. The problem, is that, America no longer seeks to end conflicts. America is attempting to build nations; America has protracted campaigns that are dulling the morale of both Middle-Eastern citizens, and our own citizens... and giving our enemies tangible weaknesses to exploit. The foreign policy of today is the one George W. Bush spoke out against when running for the office of President (before pulling a 180 in practice of office); "I think one way for us to end up viewed as the ugly American is to go around the world saying 'we do it this way, so should you'." One can also look at Senator John McCain's opposition to nation building in Somalia, which is in direct contradiction to his advocation of long-term presence in the Middle-East; "For us to get into nation-building and [securing] law and order, I think is a tragic and terrible mistake." A mistake indeed. Since invasion of these Middle-Eastern countries, the world has witnessed the rise of popular extremist clerics like Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr, a resurgent Taliban and Al-Qaeda, domestic acts of terror like the incident at Fort Hood, and growing Anti-American sentiment around the world. According to Sun Tzu, it is strategically unsound to have our conventional military forces engaged in the long-term affairs of other nations.
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202
Photo courtesy of The Washington Post

The War on Terror and Sun Tzu:

Is American Strategy Sound?
"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your Craig Dixon strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue." -Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th Century B.C. America's 'War on Terror' began in 2001 in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. In 2003 the war expanded into Iraq. Nine years later, conventional U.S. forces remain in both countries, with the blood-soaked conflict now spilling over the borders into Pakistan. Anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East continues to grow, with emerging threats in other nations beginning to manifest. No bastions of liberty have taken hold in the region, and the institution of democracy remains precarious. This is the world America finds herself in today, a world in which the threat of Islamofascism remains... and is growing. The question to ask is whether or not direct intervention (different from surgical military engagement) by U.S. forces is fueling those flames. Often, sentiment is expressed by other politiYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


Point/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 Given the failure of every contemporary attempt would be wise to begin taking into account the pothus far, the above quotations have been affirmed litical, social, and cultural ramifications of such inquite decidedly. terventions. Furthermore, subversive engagement, for When a culture takes a reactionary stance to strategic advantage, has also proven to be an abject intervention, this is what libertarians are referring failure time and time again. Like monetary interto when they use the term 'blowback'. There is no vention, heavy intervention into foreign affairs often assertion from the libertarian camp that America as produces undesired consequences. While the cona nation is at fault for terrorism, only that her milicepts of liberty and democracy struggle to take hold tary strategies are so unsound as to allow it to in Iraq, it must be noted that in the 1950s, secular thrive. democracy had already entered the region. In 1953, This same principle applies not only to Operation AJAX, a CIA-led action, deposed the only American foreign policy, but to foreign policy of true democratic government Iran has ever seen. every sovereign governing body and international Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overorganization. Governments that intervene militarily thrown at the behest of U.K. industrial interests who and on a persistent basis into foreign cultures will were angry over Iran's nationalization of their oil always generate resentment and tension. fields. The Treaty of Versailles is often cited as the The years that followed created a power vacspark for the Nazi ascension in post-Weimar Geruum... which the CIA sought to fill. The attempt many; undoubtedly, the heavy debt burdens imfailed. The repressive monarch of Mohammad Reza posed on Germany by the treaty were a contributing Shah poured gasoline onto Anti-American flames factor to the Republic's demise. and paved the way for the Islamic Governing bodies Revolution of the 1970s. Had “Governments that intervene like the United Nations Mossadegh's secular government push 'do-gooder' intervenmilitarily and on a persis- tion world-wide on the selfremained in power, one must wonder if the nuclear threat of a tent basis into foreign cul- proclaimed behalf of 'world militant Iranian state would even tures will always generate peace' and 'human proexist. gress'... but what have the The asymmetrical warfare be- resentment and tension.” implications been? Perpettween conventional U.S. forces ual American involvement and insurgents who blend into crowds is not alleviin foreign conflicts. Most of the U.N.'s "peaceating the war between islamofascism and the West. keeping" programs have turned into global security Thus far, it is merely politicizing the Middle-Eastern missions of nation-building thus perpetuating interculture into one more favorable to the sentiments of ventionist policy. The U.N.'s "peace-keeping" role militant Islam. The longer the U.S. forces remain has itself become one, long, protracted military present in the civil, social, and cultural affairs of campaign, dragging the U.S. along for the ride. these nations, the more opportunities the U.S. proSince the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. has vides to stir up new hatreds and expose new weakbecome involved in numerous interventionist opnesses that opposing political forces will seek to exerations in conjunction with U.N., from Bosnia to ploit. Somalia, and others. The United Nations has acted All interventionist actions have conseless as a forum for airing grievances and promoting quences, those that craft western foreign policy peace, and more as a self-appointed World Police.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 As the U.N. continues to pursue its own avenues for perpetual intervention, the U.S. remains embattled in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recently, a leaked video clip captured footage of U.S. forces mistakenly attacking and killing several Iraqi Reuters reporters; the reporters were mistaken as insurgent forces. During the chaos, two Iraqi children were injured. Their father, who was attempting to help the wounded reporters, died in the attack. The children were recently featured on AlJazeera speaking out about the incident; "Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were only children? The Americans wanted to kill us. Me, my brother, and my father." Hopefully, those two children grow up to be business owners, journalists, doctors, or teachers... lest they succumb to the blood-lust for revenge. If they do give in, America will have traded a handful of civilian journalists for two insurgents... and that does not seem to be in line with America's objectives of ending the threat of Islamofascism. Did You Know?
Good prevailed and evil lost after the first issue of Foreign Policy Handbook. That’s why we got rid of the image of Karl Marx on the “left” side of our header and replaced him with a Realist and Liberty :)

The European Union:
Eurocrats and the Eurosphere
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European governments came under attack for their colonial policies in the African continent. One of the primary Elliot Engstrom claims made by pan-Africanists and other antiEuropean individuals was that such European policies denied the peoples of Africa the right of selfdetermination. For example, the Declaration of Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World, drafted at a 1920 convention of the Universal Negro Improvement Association led by Marcus Garby, stated, ―We believe in the self-determination of all peoples.‖ Through policies ranging from direct rule via military force to indirect rule via forced economic dependency, European governments were holding African countries back from determining their own course. While the modern ―third world‖ certainly is not free from the tethers of traditional western powers, the situation has greatly improved from what it was a century ago. However, modern European governments are now directly denying the right of self-determination not to the peoples of other continents, but to the peoples of Europe itself. Considering the rhetoric surrounding the European Union, such as a commitment to ―sustainable development‖ and the goals of ―peace, prosperity and freedom‖ for the people of Europe, this is a sad irony indeed.

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 For a people to be able to determine their own course, they must have the power to elect to office – and remove from office – the individuals who make policy concerning trade, currency, banking, borders, transportation laws, and a variety of other issues. However, the European Union is entirely undemocratic in nature. The vast majority of decisions are made by the EU Commission, which is led by unelected commissioners and an appointed bureaucracy. The democratic element, the EU Parliament, has very few powers and very little influence. The final element of the European political system, the European Council, meets behind closed doors and typically makes secretive deals about which little is known. The incentive to care about the conDid You Know?
Three people died in riots in Greece this month after the euro collapsed in this birthplace of democracy.

cerns of individual European citizens is marginal compared to the incentive to serve the needs of the EU political machine itself. The recent Lisbon Treaty, which itself is in many ways a de facto European Constitution, is just one more example of this lack of respect for the concerns of individual Europeans. Sadly, this lack of respect for the right of self -determination is only one of the many problems with the modern European Union. As has recently been seen with Greece, the European economic system has made European citizens economically liable for the decisions of people with which they have absolutely no relations. Not only is there a moral argument against this that could frame this policy as tantamount to theft on a massive scale, but such international economic dependence also decreases the incentive for individual nation-states to be economically responsible. In the same way that American corporations will take greater risks when they know that the Federal Reserve and United States Treasury will bail them out, so will the less economically prominent members of the EU take greater risks and run larger deficits – cleverly disguised with the help of firms like GoldYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

man-Sachs – if they know that they have economic giants like the UK and Germany to bail them out when things go awry. A final problem with the EU is the massive amount of power that it wields, a power that is greater than ever originally intended when the EU was formed on the foundation of the European Community. The European Community was an economic organization solely to be active in those areas that seemed to mutually benefit the member states, but now the EU is expanding into areas that would better be handled by individual nation-states due to factors like European diversity and the different types of situations encountered in different European countries. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 began this leviathan-esque growth, and led to the existence of such policies as the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Justice and Home Affairs Policy. While an effort of this size can only summon so much evidence to its side, the ultimate goal is to encourage readers to investigate the ever-increasing scope of EU power for themselves. Such a study will likely reveal that the European Union is doing far more damage than good.

Photo courtesy of EuropeanWeekly.Org Photo courtesy of Mashable.Com

Greek riots after the fall of the Euro, May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 China is aware that if they keep their currency at a lower rate than their consumers, in this case the U.S., they can sell more products and goods, giving them an economic advantage. At the same time, China recognizes the weakening dollar and is trying to usurp it for other alternative denominations. In a New York Times article, Professor Roubini warns this troubling fact as China is preparing to have its currency be ―means of payment in bilateral trade.‖ China has made light of its position towards the US dollar during the G20 summit, in which it called for a new international trade curSovereignty, the supremacy of political power rency. a nation has over its own actions, seems to be in To help support American spending, China threat. Since the has become the largest creditor of the world, lendcollapse of the So- Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta ing $1 trillion in bonds to the United States alone. viet Union in 1991, the United States has experiHowever, as time passes and America consumes enced absolute hegemony in a uni-polar world. more, China is becoming increasingly worried about However, as globalization intertwines markets and its largest debtor nation. In March of 2009, Premier cultures, our neighbors to the East are gaining ecoWin Jinbao demanded that China be guaranteed the nomic traction. As China continues to grow ecosafety of American markets. These two factors point nomically while America seems out the crucial lack of soverto be experiencing the Japanese possesses one eignty America is losing. In the stagnation trend, sovereignty is “China becoming weakened. This eco- thing the United States first point, China owning treasuries and having the abilnomic trend will inevitably ity to become the creditor of compromise American political doesn’t: human capital.” American spending shows the sovereignty, ultimately creating vulnerability of American sustainability. To cover a new world order. expenditures, America depends on foreign states to A national debt reaching over $12 trillion, credit its markets, as well as the Federal Reserve to caused by extreme government spending, accounts create them. for the reason why American economic sovereignty China, thus, is beginning to create an ecois being compromised. Major problems in governnomic upper-hand for itself. As the dollar weakens ment waste, bailouts to private corporations, and a and China becomes worried about the safety the trillion dollar overseas expenditure are causing the Obama administration cannot provide, China has debt to skyrocket. During the Obama Administrathe power to sell (or dump) the treasuries. Secondly, tion alone, the national debt has risen over $1.5 trilChina’s ―demand‖ for safe markets strongly portrays lion and continues to climb. Many economists rethe former point, as China’s role in the world beflect this trend in the weakening U.S. dollar, the recomes stronger. American political decisions, espeserve currency around the world. When compared cially towards the international community, are to the Chinese yuan, the U.S. dollar comes out largely provided on the basis of its hegemony. strong. However, China has left the Yuan low China’s confidence to demand anything from the mainly for an export advantage.

The Next Threat
to American Sovereignty:

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 United States dramatically shows the decline in U.S. power. Moreover, to further illustrate this point, China possesses one thing the United States doesn’t: human capital. In a country with over 1 billion people and remarkable economic growth, the Chinese middle class will inevitably keep getting larger. Once the Chinese are able to obtain purchasing power, they can produce and sell products to their own domestic arena, leaving the country’s dependence on American consumerism. This remains the looming problem in many economists’ minds, as the future of America is held largely with the Chinese. For the United States, the uni-polar world will inevitably come to a close in the next century, as nations such as China, India, and Brazil become growing players in the international world. American sovereignty has already been compromised economically and once the US is affected dramatically by its weakening economic sovereignty, decisions based on international circumstances will have to carter to a more bi-polar political world. It is our government of over-regulation and over-taxation that causes the private sector to loose more jobs due to rising costs. Government policies can change to create an economic and political change in this country. If DC wants to remain in its position and retain its sovereignty, it must change its economic policies.

Why Conservatives Should

Our Foreign Policy
Let’s take a moment to examine some mainstays of conservative thought: three total nonnegotiables in the conWesley Messamore servative worldview from old standard-bearers like William F. Buckley, right on down to the present-day Tea Party movement. Number one: conservatives do not like welfare programs. They destroy productive capital, redistribute wealth, and sadly perpetuate poverty. Number two: conservatives positively hate corporate bailouts (which are really just corporate welfare). They also destroy productive capital, redistribute wealth, and incentivize risky behavior. Number three: conservatives do not take kindly to the expansion of Federal authority over the states. It consolidates power in too few hands, it leaves decision-making to distant bureaucrats who don’t understand a state or city’s local needs, and it’s usually just plain unconstitutional, violating the tenth amendment. How does this apply to America’s present foreign policy? It commits all three sins against conservative principles- and does so more extravagantly than perhaps any other government program or policy. If American conservatives are averse to the redistribution of wealth from some Americans to others, how much more should they oppose the redistribution of wealth right out of this country into the

Want to write

for the Foreign Policy Handbook?
Be a Patriot. Join the Movement.

Email the Editor: roy.antoun@yaliberty.org Find us on the web: http://www.yaliberty.org/
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 hands of the people of other countries? Aside from more overt forms of foreign welfare, even our military policy often amounts to little more than welfare for the people of other countries. When our compassionate conservative president, George W. Bush bragged about the humanitarian nature of Operation Iraqi Freedom- he was bragging about expanding our welfare state to include recipients in other countries. Can conservatives honestly approve? As for bailouts, or corporate welfare- the number one factor that galvanized America’s resurgent liberty movement over the last two years- our foreign and military policy are fraught with it. The terrible thing is how sneaky it is. If a lobbyist convinces Congress to bail out their company with taxpayer money, Americans can clearly see and oppose this policy as corporate welfare. But what if the lobbyist gets Congress to award his company a contract for services the government can convince taxpayers that it needs? Then the lobbyist and his company can get away with the taxpayer’s money without inciting the taxpayer’s rage. But this is still corporate welfare and it happens all the time- frequently in the defense budget (which is one reason why defense accounts for so much of the federal budget). Is it so hard to believe that not all our defense dollars actually make us more safe? That our politicians just might be lying to us and spending that money to make their friends and lobbyists and donors wealthier at your expense? Finally- the more involved our federal government becomes in a foreign policy of neverending troop deployments, peace-keeping missions, wars, occupations, permanent treaties and strategic alliances (like NATO and the UN), the more decisions it necessarily makes for the several states whether those decisions are best for each individual state or not. Concentrating so much power in the hands of the federal government should make any conservative wary, and our present foreign policy does just that. It ensures that our federal government takes more and more money from states and
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

decides how it should be spent, makes more and more decisions in one distant city (Washington D.C.) that affect everybody else, and has rawer, unchecked power over the states and the people respectively. Conservatives should not be happy with this state of affairs at all. While they may cheer the government’s decision to indefinitely detain potential terrorists without charges because it might make us more safe, conservatives would do well to remember that our government’s Department of Homeland Security considers them potential terrorists. It should be clear from our examination of these three mainstays of conservative thought, that conservatives (even more than socialist progressives) should be outraged at our present foreign policy.

Be the Catalyst
Join the Foreign Service
Visit <<http://careers.state.gov/officer/index.html>> Be the change in the Washington Machine


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 a riveting read, and will learn a lot about the CFR in the process. It should be noted the CFR has some members which may be considered promoters of the cause of liberty, such as Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man, a free-market account of the Great Depression, which I recommend reading. Shlaes is a senior fellow with the organization. Two other groups which, along with the CFR, are often accused of abetting in a globalist conspiracy are the Trilateral Commission (TC) and the Bilderberg Group. I have yet to come across any literature which defends the two groups against accusations made against them, which is mainly that they are working towards globalism and against American sovereignty. One book that offers insight into both groups is The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, the North American Union Edition, by Daniel Estulin. While it is hard to prove or disprove some of Estulin’s accusations, he does provide a very in-depth look into the history of both groups, as well as some attendee lists, which you may find surprising. No one can deny both groups exert massive power over American foreign policy. President Jimmy Carter was a Trilateral Commission member himself, and President Bill Clinton attended a Bilderberg Group meeting before becoming the Democratic nominee in 1992. Remember that bizarre moment during the 2008 election where President Obama’s plane took off with a bunch of angry reporters inside, and no then-Senator Obama? Many allege that President Obama was actually attending the 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly, Virginia. The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which calls itself ―America’s pro-Israel lobby‖ on its website, is influential in obtaining US government support for the Israeli government. AIPAC makes the interests of the Israeli government paramount. For further study on AIPAC from a libertarian angle I highly recommend the antiwar.com articles which pertain to them. Grant Smith wrote an excellent article on how AIPAC spies on Ameri-

Who Controls
Our Foreign Policy?
Many different groups influence foreign policy in the United States. The purpose of this article is not to discuss in depth how each of the groups that will be mentioned affect Brandon DeMeo foreign policy, but to mention some major ones who do, and some resources to study them further. This subject is often controversial. I suggest studying them through the lens of a skeptic, but with an open mind. The first group is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). They are ―an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher,‖ according to the official CFR website. Their members include media personalities, globalist celebrities, and powerful politicians and bureaucrats, among others. Their members have exerted much influence on our foreign policy since their founding in 1921. While the CFR has no clear, discernable agenda, it is their individual members who influence foreign policy, not the group itself. The best book I have come across in researching the CFR is The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline, by James Perloff. It basically asserts the CFR is a ―hidden oligarchy‖ of sorts, and even if you do not agree with its conclusions, you will likely find it

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 cans. Philip Giraldi, whose writings often appear on the Campaign for Liberty website, wrote an article on antiwar.com entitled ―The Best Congress AIPAC Can Buy,‖ which I consider a good starting point for studying the negative effects of AIPAC on our foreign policy. While these are not the only groups which influence our foreign policy, they are four of the most important. Clearly, our interventionist foreign policy is due in part to influences by groups which have other goals in mind than national security. That is the inherent danger in these groups; they do not put America and its citizens and its military men and women first. They put their special interests first.
Photo courtesy of FineOldArt.com

two democracies ever go to war with one another because, as Kant professed in Perpetual Peace, people in an electoral system will never vote for a leader who is willing to send them to war. He wrote,
“If the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but be the case), nothing is more natural than that they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war.”

Law or Hoax?
Disproving Democratic Peace Theory
Many academics and so-called politicians often argue that Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) is close to becoming international relations law. While many Libertarians and libertyRoy Antoun minded individuals uphold the mantras of free markets, advocating nation-building for the sake of free trade is the philosophical equivalent of Adam Smith resurrecting from his grave and agreeing with Vladimir Lenin on the science of history; it’s blind neoconservatism at best. Nationbuilding-Democratic-Caliphates violate state sovereignty and induce blowback. DPT suggests that no
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

Many fail to recall the evolution of democracy over the course of history. Democracies weren’t born overnight, neither were they byproducts of some divine intervention or gift from god. Representative governments evolved from thousands of years of feudal, oppressive systems that dictated social law and restricted the free flow of capital by means of serfdom, slavery, religion, excess taxes, social control, and divine right. The Enlightenment was a product of Feudalism, and even then, the teachings of Locke, Hume, and Voltaire took another hundred years to be partially implemented into European society. By the early 1800s, Napoleon Bonaparte transformed the French Republic into the French Consulate which had three voting bodies and plural suffrage. France, under Napoleon, had administrative departments, established higher education, a tax code, infrastructure systems, and a central bank. It had all the ingredients to make an E.U. eurocrat believe that Napoleon was the missing link. And so did England. England had a parliament with dual Houses, a House of Lords and a House of Commons. The United States had a functioning Constitution and a representative body as well. Yet, France and England went to war for the better part of the early 1800’s, and England and the United States went to war within the same timeframe. As Democracies evolved through revolution and radical political reform, they also grew hegemonic. Britain, with a representative Parliament, developed an empire that covered one-third of the globe. The English mantra soon changed to, ―The
roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202


Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 sun never sets on the English Empire.‖ France expanded into the Middle East and North Africa after establishing its Republic in the late 19th century. Germany developed colonies through wars in South Africa; the United States established protectorates in Cuba, the Philippines, and the list expanded over time. Even recently, Americans reelected President George W. Bush in 2004 on the terms that he would continue the colloquial ―War on Terror‖. Democracies are not naturally peaceful; rather, they are a byproduct of whatever cultural elites sell it to be, in War of 1812: Two Democracies at War this case, hegemonic. If the president woke up one morning and decided that democracies operating on ernments went to war with one another in the Indonon-Western standards would henceforth become Pakistani war of 1965. The Falkland Island War of enemies of the U.S., it is almost guaranteed that, if 1982 was fought between Britain and Argentina, of sold properly, culture will follow which both had representative along with the self-professed elite. governments. Although many may “Governments go to But this isn’t a matter ―if‖ the argue that these listed countries war with one another; were not ―Democracies‖ in today’s president will do this – he already has, hence, our distaste for states people do not.” Western standards, the listed such as Egypt, Iran, Palestine, and countries had wide representation Venezuela. of some fashion or another with an electoral body However, Democracies not only go to war not limited to just aristocratic members of society. with other states but also go to war with each other. The War of 1812, fought between the United States Democratic Peace Theory is also a Western and parliamentary England, was the first example of invention. Democracy within itself is a Western inhow two representational states were capable of vention and has been crafted by Western thinkers. warring against one another. The Franco-Prussian Immanuel Kant, author of Perpetual Peace, resided War of 1870-71 was fought between the French Rein present-day Germany where the theory was first public and a parliamentarian, representative Prusdevised. By ―Western‖ I am eluding to the Huntingsia. India and Pakistan, two parliamentarian govtonian concept of the Cold War-Western World which consisted of the United States, Canada, and Europe, minus South America and Russia; ―drug lords‖ and ―commies‖ need not apply when neoconservatives reign the American Empire. This invention does not suggest, however, that culture is innately democratic; cultures are whatever their elites make them to be and are always prone to change. Rather, Democracies have the dangerous potential and tendency to be hegemonic, especially when its elected leaders wish to promote those ―democratic values‖ abroad. And hence, Democratic Peace TheThe Falkland Island War: Two Democracies at War
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


Photo courtesy of PsyWar.org

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 ory is born on this concept: if the world desires to be free, then democracies are obliged to make the world free for the sake of perpetual peace. But perpetual peace inevitably relies on perpetual war. As cultures change, governments change. Democracy is never permanent and neither is any form of government. The only thing perpetual is the theory. Playing ―world police‖, or a real life version of RISK, with the intentions of preserving democratic values eventually drains economies for the military enforcement of said values. To ensure ―freedom‖, the U.S. has fought over five major wars in the past century which have only resulted in perpetual conflict today. In an age where state governments dictate social and economic policy, Democratic Peace Theory will be put to a much greater test. The theory also suggests that states which trade with one another are less likely to go to war due to fiscal dependency. This is perhaps doubly more dangerous than Engels’s prediction of a global communist revolution. States that traded with one another throughout history have always gone to war, precisely for economic reasons. The Anglo-Dutch Wars, the War of 1812, and the World Wars, just to name a few, were sparked by states that already established trade with one another or were angered over debt and mismanaged bureaucratic economies. Intervention in the marketplace, like interventionism in foreign policy, gave the Nazi Party the parliamentary majority in Germany and fascism in Italy. Democracy is not permanent and that is the major flaw in Democratic Peace Theory. Even if they were, government will always find new reasons to conduct war. Governments go to war with one another; people do not. Senator George McGovern once stated, ―I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.‖ He was referencing how the ―old men‖ elected into office often send young men to war and never vice versa. Why? Because individuals are simply incapable of waging
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

war whereas the military-industrial complex is. Nonintervention and open markets, however, are a safer alternative to seeking a more peaceful world. Democracies are, in essence, premature republics. Allowing nations to determine their own paths to republicanism (which is how most European nation-states and the U.S. formed their governments) is far safer than the nation-building mantras of Democratic Peace Theory. Although this alternative does not eliminate the possibility of war, it most certainly reduces it. When governments become indebted to one another either fiscally or ideologically, they become vulnerable to war and discontent. When private businesses become indebted to one another, they’re forced, under the rule of law, to settle matters legally because they have no militaries. But governments do and that is precisely what makes them so dangerous and volatile. That is why democracies are essentially hazardous without the rule of law. That is why people have established republics; when people stray from republican forms of government and adherence to law becomes moot even on an international level, states become prone to war and conflict. Democratic Peace Theory is flawed and obsolete for these reasons. Democracy or not, so long as people allow the growth of the state, war will forever be the health of the state.

For an interesting read, pick up Ivan Eland’s The Empire Has No Clothes


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 feel they need to go to extreme measures to kill ―the west.‖— this first comes with the understanding of Middle Eastern history. The aftermaths of September 11th didn’t give the public much time to ponder why they attacked ―us‖ before President Bush announced the nation. The President stated that AlQaeda’s motive for the attacks were solely based on the hatred of ―our freedoms, our democracy and our wealth.‖ As a result, the nation believed this conclusion. Bin Ladin, used this for his advantage to recruit more members into one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world. In this paper, I will explain how globalization and a ―lack of democracy,‖ have been used efficiently by terrorist organization such as Al-Qaeda. In a speech made right after the attacks, Bin Ladin stated the reasons and justifications for his actions. In what would become his 9/11 Speech, Ladin stated that the Middle East, ever since the forced break up of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1, has been left weak and only governed by western states. Arab nations under the control of mainly British mandate powers, never fully reached sovereignty. They could never govern themselves the way they wanted to in their own holy land. Moreover, Bin Ladin illustrated that military invasions particularly from the United States have done nothing but harm to the Arab nations. He elaborates on Afghanistan’s participation, headed by the United States, to end the Cold War. The US gave AlQaeda equipment to defeat the Soviets and subsequently radicalize them for our own national security interests at the time. A few years later, the US had sided with Iraq’s former and late dictator Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. We then changed diplomatic ties with Iraq and put trade sanctions that caused many to die of starvation and other related diseases. Additionally, Bin Ladin used the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. Palestine has been unable to achieve territorial and judicial sovereignty while Israel gained independence in the 1960s with Western support. Economic and military

Explanations for
Continued Terrorism:
Globalization and Lack of Democracy
Historical: Bin Ladin’s Al-Qaeda On September 11th, 2001, a day in which almost all Americans remember vividly, the images of two towers collapsMarissa Yturralde-Giannotta ing in the midst of New York City, united a country in unprecedented ways. The passion and patriotism that exploded after the traumatic events integrated the efforts of bipartisanship across Washington. Democrats and Republicans alike came together in a time of great weakness in our nation’s history. As America would begin a war on the Middle East, the Arab World was preparing to continue one. Eight years and almost $700 billion later we still face the same challenges we did on September 12th, 2001. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center our efforts to reduce national security threats and bring vengeance on terrorist have failed. Our tactic and understanding of terrorism have been essential to the failure of what many would say a ―no win‖ war. To explain why battling terrorism has failed, we first must understand the motives of our enemies. In other words, we must try to learn why they

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 aid from the US has been used in Israel against Palestinians when trying to achieve self-determination. The power Israel has been able to secure is largely due and maintained by the West, particularly the United States. Bin Ladin strongly advocated for the ending of this aid and the US participation in ArabIsraeli conflicts. region, we no longer possess soft power or adoration that most of the world did towards the United States. The globalization theory also states that the ―have-nots‖, or the impoverished, are encouraged to take steps against the unjust actions occurring in their state. Globalization creates a sense of rejection to the world’s progression that many of these ―haveThe Power of Globalization: Explanation #1. nots‖ possess. This, however, is not consistent with While many states (Iran, Syria etc), even the findings as seen with terrorist organizations. Althose who disagreed with the United States, showed though it does encourage a population to take acinitial sympathy for the attacks, the public was still tion, most impoverished are not concerned with a unconvinced of the war radical political agenda the United States was that Bin Ladin is trying to about to wage in their sell. Instead they become land. Globalization, or inindifferent or in many tegrated global communicases oblivious to the cation, has played a cruevents happening in incial part in terrorism. The ternational politics and/ transfer of images, includor history. Because there ing video and photos, is a significant population gives a live feed to the living in rural and/or imevents happening in the poverished in the Middle Arab region. In this case, East, access to daily news Photo courtesy of OldAmericanCentury.Org these images are shown on does not reach a percentCan democracy be hegemonic? age of the people. Rather, many television sets and computer screens accessible the impoverished are to many Arabs. In Arab eyes, the chaos and destrucsolely concerned with the tasks of daily life than tion occurring is directly correlated to U.S. occupasome political agenda. Because globalization leads tion in the region. Thus it is easy to connect that Bin to prosperity and modernization, only the upper Ladin, in a wicked sense, becomes a ―freedom class, those who have leisure time, and/or those fighter‖ to many Arab people. In some form, some considered intellectual, develop such feelings. Thus, Arab people and even some states (indiscreetly) harmost terrorists, despite popular belief, are actually bored a sense of satisfaction that America was now the cultured of the Middle East who have accessibiltasting what the Arab world was tasting for years. ity to world events rather than poor uneducated ruEven if it is right or wrong, Arabs directly point the ral ―have-nots.‖ blame to the United States. Many critics of the Iraq War, including, Congressman Ron Paul, point out Political Power Vacuum: Explanation #2. that globalization is the main reason for continued The years after 9/11, many in DC were conresentment towards the United States that inevitavinced that a lack of democracy was one of the dibly breeds terrorism. With our foreign policy being rect causes of terrorism. This theory, constantly displayed on all different kinds of mediums in the used by neo-conservatives and other politicians, asYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 lowed much mobility within the terrorist organization to assemble and recruit. Without a legitimate government with actual policing force, an environment is created where terrorists are allowed to continue their work and move throughout borders to influence and gather more recruits. For the United States, this means the supply-side of terrorism is still not being addressed. Explaining the reasons for terrorism is by no means a justification towards it. Rather, by explaining the reasons on how terrorism is created, maintained, and manifested it allows the United States to battle terrorism efficiently with potentially less loss of life. However, seeing the continued resentment the Arab people have towards the United States, illustrates that American foreign policy regarding the region needs some viable change or more blowback will undoubtedly occur. Its important to highlight the historical reasons for the cause of this resentment as seen in the Arab eyes. Globalization amplifies the resentment and a lack of democracy mobilizes it. Although these are not the sole two reasons for the continuation of terrorism, they are important to the understanding how terrorism is still able to act discreetly, going through weak government infrastructure and becoming transnational (and now transcontinental with terrorism recruiting in Europe) organizations. As previously mentioned, to have the United States efficiently battle terrorism to stop further loss of innocent lives, there must be a study of the supply-side of terrorism and how Bin Ladin and others alike have been using it to their advantage.
Photo courtesy of TheAge.com.au

serts that totalitarian states harbor more terrorists because of the lack of individual rights, or in essence democracy. Individual rights and liberties, including those in the Bill of Rights, provide protection of the individual from the government. The government, therefore, has checks and balances from the collective society. A totalitarian regime (a state that lacks democracy), they advocate, leads to mass dissent and rebellion within the population, or in this case, breeds terrorism. Thus, the United States views a lack of democracy, especially within the Arab States, as an environment in which terrorism can easily spread because of the discontent dwelling in the public. The problem with this theory is that empirical evidence disproves its conclusion. While there is political dissent in totalitarian regimes, most are eradicated quick and efficiently. The totalitarian regime in Iraq exemplifies this notion. Saddam Hussein’s regime would publically show its aggression towards any dissenter. Furthermore, totalitarian regimes act as big brothers in the society, heavily monitoring culture; therefore, there is no room for ideas to develop or assemble under heavily monitored societies (totalitarians, authoritarian). There has been no evidence to support that Iraq was harboring terrorists or that terrorist activities were being conducted under the radar of the totalitarian regime. Rather, because of the power vacuum that has occurred, terrorism has grown in Iraq and has alYoung Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 Throughout the 1960s, the IMF and World Bank both became more powerful. Now the IMF also functions to ―stop trade deficits‖. Nearly every United Nations member is a member of both the World Bank and IMF and they are funded almost entirely by membership fees. Or in other words, tax dollars. Most IMF and World Bank loans are given with stipulations. The money must be used in a certain way or certain policies must be implemented to the liking of the IMF. Often this involves currency devaluation or other monetary manipulations. At other times, it involves erecting trade barriers or removing them. In this way, the IMF and World Bank effectively bribe politicians of countries to enforce policies that these unaccountable technocrats see fit. Whether these policies are wise or not is not the issue but rather the perverse incentives created by the institutions to destroy the democratic process in the countries to which the IMF and World Bank offer loans. Worse yet, after these stipulations are made, if the government seeks forgiveness of debt, often it comes with only more stipulations. Lastly, this sort of massive loans to governments instead of credit-worthy private sector businesses encourages only central planning, which has been shown to fail consistently. Furthermore, there is no democratic process for the citizens of the countries giving the loan. The IMF and World Bank is giving loans completely while completely unaccountable to the people whose money they are using for them. This ends in the usage of “With the advent of this fiat American tax- currency, it allows massive payers arbitrary inflation of the in a va- global money supply.” riety of ways that they would not approve. The IMF and World bank have funded various dictators over the years from Argentina to Zaire, many with poor human rights records. Even though the loans are

Epic Fail:
How International Financial Institutions

Are the Causes of World Problems
The International Monetary Fund (―IMF‖), along with the World Bank, was created in 1944 at the infamous Bretton Woods Daniel Suraci Conference. The conference is most commonly known for creating the dollar as the reserve currency of the world after massive inflation during World War II destroyed most countries' currencies. At conception, the IMF and World Bank were understood to have been created in order to reestablish the ravaged world after World War II. The World Bank had the goal of ―economic and social progress‖, while the IMF was to allow for currency exchange and act as a lender of last resorts for indebted nations. Before World War II, the world used an international gold standard for money. Now, without a gold standard, the stated reasons for creating the IMF was to make foreign currencies available freely and sufficiently to promote trade.
Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 given with stipulations, money is fungible. This means that when an international financial institution gives one million dollars to a dictator for ―infrastructure projects‖ or ―food, blankets and necessities‖, that is one million dollars he can use for bullets, propaganda, etc instead of supplying those basic needs. John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, levels another critique at the IMF and World Bank: that they are similar tools of corporate welfare. When a government creates an infrastructure project, they must hire a company. This tends to be a large American corporation which effectively lobbies for the job. The companies hire economists to use econometrics to show massive growth and sustainability, even where it does not exist. The governments then take out a massive loan from the World Bank, and then use it to buy the labor of an American company. In this way, the World Bank acts as simply a roundabout subsidy for American businesses. The IMF has one decree which should bother Americans after the financial collapse of the past years: the ability to bailout indebted nations. Much of the same rationale for why domestic bailouts for companies are bad are the same for countries. Primarily, (1) moral hazard and (2) preserving a status quo that has failed. Bankruptcy is a time not only for companies to organize but countries as well. By preventing this reorganization, the IMF prevents a country from resolving the mistakes which led it to its collapse. The IMF has created its own fiat currency called Special Drawing Rights (―SDR‖) which allow it to effectively give any country however much money the IMF sees fit. Granted they are supposedly bound by their reserves, but in the end, they can forgive the debt. The IMF cannot go bankrupt. With the advent of this fiat currency, it allows massive arbitrary inflation of the global money supply. While before, when the international standard was gold, the money supply was limited by the finite nature of gold. Now, the total money supply is kept in check merely by technocrats. Obviously, the effect of this will be much more localized as the well connected in each country are paid with an arbitrary amount of SDR , it acts in the same way that a Federal Reserve increase in the money supply does domestically. Again though, the IMF's inflation is created far from the reaches of any democratic process within the country's constituents. Lastly, the IMF and World Bank present a legal problem and not simply policy ones. Where is the Constitutional authority to use federal tax money to fund international institutions? Even though the executive is given the authority to create treaties, Congress must sign them, and can only enforce provisions pursuant to their enumerated powers under the Constitution. The IMF and World Bank show the failure of central planning and of bureaucracies over and over. In only this brief survey of the macroeconomic problems created by the IMF and World Bank, they cause financial, monetary, legal, political and economic problems. This does not begin to touch on the actual effects felt in the microeconomic affairs of the average citizen in the countries touched by these institutions. The IMF and World Bank are unjustifiable, and serve only to waste resources. As Dr. Ron Paul stated, ―The IMF is a relic

In Next Month’s Issue of

Foreign Policy Handbook
  

In Depth Look at Greece & the Federal Reserve Why Google Made the Right Decision Will Afghanistan ever end? Wargaming!

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

Commentary | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010 of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and deluded economists believed they could micromanage the world's economy.‖ Today, it is time to move on from such delusion.

Suggested Reading
By the FPH Team

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010


roy.antoun@yaliberty.org | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 22202

“Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war.” - Otto von Bismarck

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->