Yes Libertarians… Liberty Outside the U.S. Matters
by Thomas R. Gervasi
There are three observations someone of a more classically-liberal viewpoint could make in the aftermath of the Russian military intervention in the Ukraine, in regards to the diverse range of American opinion on the topic.
First, in the Democratic camp, surprisingly the President and his Administration could be said to have thus far acted quite restrained and reasonable. That is of course compared to five years of foreign policy that could only be described as “Neocon lite.”
Secondly, we observe something disturbing which we have not seen in quite a few years in the Republican camp. Many of us are startled by a mob of middle-aged, war-mongering, conservatives; foaming at the mouth, suddenly emboldened, and calling for aggressive action. According to one conservative commentator on local radio in the Philadelphia-area, not only is Russia our ENEMY, but so is China!
“Obama is weak and needs to do something about the missile gap! Sputnik was a wake up call that the Russians are on the verge of surpassing us! John Lennon said he is Jesus and the real Paul secretly died!”. Cold War nostalgia is back, and we even have a “Red Dawn” remake on Netflix to celebrate!
Lastly, there are multiple diverse opinions we observe amongst libertarians. Many of us who feel Ukraine is none of our business. Why is this, and what is the reasoning behind it?
I am not going to act as if I was somehow immune to such thoughts or impulses. In conversing with a friend on the subject upon first hearing of the Russian intervention, I even stated, “It’s not our problem.”
To an extent that statement is correct. What occurs in the Ukraine and many other parts of the world is not directly related to the immediate concerns of Americans. Furthermore, we libertarians have a tendency to be in a reactive, defensive position against the prevailing Democratic and Republican Party schools of thought. “It’s none of our business” is a knee-jerk rejection of the programming. It is an attitude which rejects the non-stop series of unnecessary, foreign wars, and it’s a logical reaction to trigger-happy American politicians.
Ultimately, a serious foreign policy agenda in the 21st Century cannot be totally isolationist. “It’s none of our business” will not make the cut. It’s also not very becoming of a movement that loves individual rights and wants liberty for all people to simply stand by and watch people get robbed of their freedom.
Thankfully, a more thoughtful, more proactive libertarian foreign policy agenda exists, called non-interventionism, which many libertarians subscribe to.
The default classically liberal position would be to avoid military intervention in foreign wars: unless it is for actual self-defense of our country or to protect our businesses and trade overseas from violence. The exception would have to be compelling, and criteria extremely limited, (such as only supporting liberally-minded governments/groups, and never supporting despots or extremist groups).
Using the current crisis in Syria as an example, military intervention is out of the question. It would in no way be related to self-defense, and would not fall under any acceptable criteria as an exceptions to the self-defense axiom. It would likely entangle us in a civil war, and would only empower either a dictator on one side or a radical jihadi group on the other.
In so far as defending individual rights around the world with the military, the default classically liberal ideal would be for Americans, Europeans, Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Syrians, Ukrainians, and others, being prepared to defend themselves and their own sovereignty. Nation-states should also form defense pacts with neighboring countries to increase strength against potentially larger and more powerful foes.
What is not acceptable is for nation-states to sit idle and unprepared, while expecting other individuals from halfway across the world to expend blood and resources for them. America should not be policemen of the world.
In so far as defending individual rights around the world without the military, there are several other ways to advocate and forward the cause in most situations, without using bombs or putting soldiers on the ground. Using Syria as an example again, actions which Americans could pursue would come in the form of advocacy for diplomatic reprimands at the United Nations, organizing support for those groups which are liberally-minded where possible, and of course humanitarian relief for the innocent.
Certainly, the reasonable non-interventionist, American approach in the Ukraine would involve some combination of strong, non-violent, condemnation of Russia’s actions, diplomacy, and supporting liberals wherever possible. The American government should also refrain from hand-picking political leadership for Ukrainians, which would be an unwise intervention and a violation of their sovereignty. If there is one thing that is definitely none of our business, it’s subverting the will of their people.
Non-intervention is not isolationism, as it is often slandered as. We as libertarians can care about other people’s problems, and stand up for freedom and liberty, without condoning our government trampling on us and the people of the world.
7 comments