It’s the (Global Security) Economy, Stupid
Almost overnight this week, war and foreign policy crises gave way to grim economic news across newspaper headlines, in campaign stump speeches, and in the public consciousness. But, as several candidates in last night’s Florida Republican debate observed, economic and foreign policy issues are intimately linked. The state of America’s economy reflects the broader welfare of the American people, and our welfare is heavily dependent upon our security in the world. But this is a two way street: whether they acknowledge it or not, other countries benefiting from the global economy depend on America’s costly and too often solo investments in global security.
Of the Republicans on stage last night, all but Ron Paul (and perhaps Mike Huckabee) are staunch, longstanding defenders of free trade, and they clearly understand that the global economy contains both causes and solutions for America’s current economic woes. It’s up to us to take as much advantage of the solutions as we have blundered into the causes. As Rudy characteristically put it:
“We should be very aggressive about the global economy. Americans should be thinking about, how much can we sell to the rest of the world? And how much can we invest in them, as they’re investing in us?”
Amen. Selling more American products, including investment in US businesses, will make life better for many Americans, and is likewise good for foreigners. Though we should carefully scrutinize billion dollar bailouts from Arab, Russian, and Chinese funds, we should recognize these offers as positive outgrowths of global economic partnership that reflect continuing confidence in US companies.
But another solution to global economic slowdown is to do a better job of distributing among its participants the costs and burdens of maintaining the global peace and security necessary for continuing growth. That’s an approach the candidates failed to discuss last night, but it is every bit as critical as attracting foreign investment and pumping direct stimulus into the US economy in the form of tax cuts.
Here’s one very important example a smart candidate might take up: There is broad consensus among Democrats and Republicans today that ensuring the future stability and prosperity of Afghanistan and Pakistan is essential to preventing Islamist terrorists from finding safe havens in the region from which to attack us again. Clearly, another mega terror attack along the lines of 9/11 would wreak havoc upon the global economy, whether it hit New York, London, Budapest, Tokyo or even Beijing. Yet today, America and a handful of allies bear the lion’s share of responsibility for the future of Afghanistan, and we’re still not doing nearly enough to get that country back on its feet. In effect, we’re subsidizing the global economy by paying to keep destabilizing extremists at bay. But because we alone can’t afford the investment necessary for long term stability in the region, we’re buying only temporary respite.
The problem is that instead of recognizing the shared, international interest in Afghan stability and prosperity, our partners in the global economy have turned a blind eye to it, and enjoyed the fruits of America’s security spending without worrying about its long term sustainability. In some cases, our friends and partners are actively making the job harder, and more expensive (e.g. Saudi Arabia’s ongoing sponsorship of Wahabbist madrasas in neighboring Pakistan).
The solution is to expand the global security “economy” the way we’ve opened up global markets for goods and services. Just as China, Russia, and the Arab states see a compelling national interest in investing in great American companies at bargain basement prices, these states must see investment in conflict prevention today as key to ensuring continuing political and economic stability, the basis of consumer confidence, booming trade, and prosperity worldwide.
Sure, there are plenty of excuses for foreign governments to continue to shirk their fair share of the security burden—not the least of which might be the difficulty of deciding which situations warrant intervention, how that intervention ought to be handled, and which country will call the shots on the ground. But there are also plenty of issues, like Afghanistan, where an overwhelming majority of states share the same basic goals, and Americans will be more than willing to give others a seat at the table—even outright leadership—in exchange for real partnership.
One thing is certain. As long as Americans remain willing to bear the security burden alone, and even insist upon doing so, we’ll be feeling the pinch of globalization without realizing its full benefits.
No related posts.
Ron Paul is a supporter of free trade – he’s the only one on stage that recognizes that you don’t need a multi-national bureaucracy to manage trade. He knows that all you need to do is remove barriers. You don’t need a 1000 page treaty to remove barriers. You just repeal our tariffs and quotas. He opposes managed trade, but some people mistake that for opposition to free trade. Managed trade isn’t free trade.
Comment on January 25, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Ayn has it correct! Thank You
Comment on January 25, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
I’m afraid that you haven’t studied Ron Paul’s position nor past voting record. Dr. Paul is very much for *true* free trade and not the supposed version that is being enacted in this nation and internationally now. He has clearly said how corporations should be able to actively compete in a global market and how the consumers should be the ones to decide how and where things are made with their purchasing power. He does not, and should not, support the selling of America to overseas interests, but rather the proper competitive trade that allows for economic growth for buyer and seller.
In addition Dr. Paul believes in a very strong national security and military, and does not shirk from the thought of using it to protect US interests but *not* for us to go into nations to nation build or “make them like us.” This is the best security and under previous presidents, most notably Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, a free and open trade with a strong military to protect our nation can once again return us to the respected level we should be in the world.
Comment on January 25, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Matt — first comment here, hope I don’t sound too tough.
“Global security economy” is a great term. Not sure if you’ve read Todd’s After the Empire, but it is analogous to what he calls “tribute”. Your term is more neutral and can be used in domestic discourse.
Tod’s argument about tribute is we need X billion of dollars coming in every day to support our economy and security costs, and his view is that we are asking “tribute” from our allies to help. I think he misses the point about security of capital, as well as innovation and the service sector, but the question at the end is the same as yours: how do we get other countries to help out on our security costs?
(Parag’s article in this Sunday’s NYT Magazine should be interesting. I would like to hear your thoughts)
But how we do get there? Just offering another place on the table might not cut it anymore. The Saudi Arabia/Pakistans of the world doubt the US will be paying attention to them in 6.5 years and have little interest in really playing along. Transnational institutions (NATO) might be played out.
Price stability is something everything wants. Saudi Arabia clearly wants a quiet Gulf with as much potential to sell expensive oil as possible. Is that enough?
Comment on January 25, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Looking at global security issues from the economic perspective is to my mind a pretty promising approach. Global security is a public good which means the problems characteristic of other public goods such as the “free rider” probalem and the problem of underproduction (and inefficiency of their production) apply to it also. Nor is security equally ditributed although it should be comprehensive and indivisible as a principle of internaional law.
This is not to say that the international security issues can be explained in terms of political economy only, far from it. Yet, application of economic analysis to global security can give the students of international security a new insight into the underlying roots of the acute insecurity in the world today.
Comment on January 26, 2008 @ 3:15 am
A Letter of Introduction from T. Herman Zweibel
By T. Herman Zweibel
Publisher Emeritus (photo circa 1911)
The Onion
January 21, 2008 | Issue 44•03
The school-educated busy-bodies who manage my media properties inform me that it is almost time to appoint a new President. I almost cannot believe it is time for the suet-brained populace of this flagging Republic to be once again herded into the voting-booths to allegedly choose precisely which bloody-handed butcher will crack their bones and suck the marrow over the next few years. Futility, I say, rank and base futility! Does the grist choose the mill, the rabbit the hawk, the innocent 12-year-old Atlantic City orphan girl the lusty mob of beefy, drunk, vacationing coal-oil sales-men? They do not, and neither do the Citizens choose their Leaders. However, if The Onion news-paper can further the illusion that an individual vote has more potential to change the world than a lamb’s last bubbling bleat in a crowded slaughter-house—and furthermore, if we may turn a hand-some profit by doing so—than let The Onion be the Judas goat to the milling herd of democratic cattle!
I am told that our new War of the White House section will contain the vetted and censored life stories of each candidate; white-washed and simplified versions of their heinous plans to drain the life and wealth of each and every tax-payer; a schedule denoting the appearances of every aspirant, so that one may go and be covered in unspeakable fulminating lies in person instead of hearing them over the crystal-set. I should God damned well hope that there will also be prettily-colored pictures, or else the average American citizen will not be able to keep his eye on it for more than a few heart-beats, and it would be better yet if there were accompanying photos of ample heaving bosoms. Sadly, the man in the street becomes affronted whenever he feels his supposed dignity is being besmirched. Why is this? The man in the street is, for all his puffery, standing there in the God damned street!
In any case, there will also be a section on how our Democracy works, despite even the simplest boor suspecting in his secret heart of hearts that it is a sham. Which it is. I have not voted since becoming a wealthy industrialist, having figured out some time ago that it is much wiser to employ the organ grinder than vote for the monkey. Still, I hope this special section is of some amusement to all. I understand that one of the candidates is campaigning in a dress this year, and yet another in a minstrel’s blackface, which I must say was unexpected; but as long as there are no Catholics on the ballot, I see no reason to summon the marksmen.
Now get back to work!
Comment on January 26, 2008 @ 5:36 pm