FPHandbook_issue2

8/9/2019 FPHandbook_issue2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fphandbookissue2 1/25

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

YOUNG AMERICANS for LIBERTY

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH

Issue II | May 20

The War on Terror and Sun T

Is American Strategy Sound

Craig D

Elliot Engstrom

The European Union:

Eurocrats and the Eurosphere

Law or Hoax? Disproving

Democratic Peace Theory

Roy Antoun

Why Conservatives

Should Hate Our

Foreign Policy Wesley Messamore

The Next Threat to America

Sovereignty: China

Marissa Yturralde-Gian



The Young Americans for Liberty’s

Foreign Policy

Handbook

May 2010



The War on Terror and Sun Tz

Is American Strategy Sound?

―The problem, is that, America no longer s

to end conflicts. America is attempting to b

nations; America has protracted campathat are dulling the morale of both Mid

Eastern citizens, and our own citizens...

giving our enemies tangible weaknesses to

ploit.‖

CONTINUED P. 5

Why ConservativesShould

Hate

Our Foreign Policy

READ MORE P. 10

Law or Hoax?

DisprovingDemocratic Peace Theory

READ MORE P. 13

Craig Dixon

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

Wesley Messamore

Roy Antoun


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fphandbookissue2 4/25Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010

Contents

YAL MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is to train, educate, and mobilize youth activists committewinning on principle." Our goal is to cast the leaders of tomorrow and reclaim the policies, candidates, and direcf 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, libend property set forth by our Founding Fathers. Our country was created to protect the freedoms of the individnd directed by we the people.

We recognize that freedom deserves responsibility and therefore we hold ourselves to a high moral character and cuct. Integrity emphasizes our stance towards action. Principle defines our outlook towards government. Peace rosperity drives our ambitions towards our countrymen.

We inherit a corrupt, coercive world that has lost respect for voluntary action. Our government has failed ragged our country into moral decay. The political class dominates the agenda with a violent, callous, controlrip. And, for this we do not stand.

Executive Director

Jeff Frazee

Editor in Chief Roy Antoun

Contributors

Wesley Messamore

Nelson Chase

Jeremy Davis

Daniel Suraci

Brandon DeMeo

Craig Dixon

Elliot Engstrom

Marissa Yturralde-Gianno

Why Does NATO Still Exist?

By Jeremy Davis

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

By Craig Dixon

The European Union: Eurocrats and the Eurosphere

By Elliot Engstrom

The Next Threat to American Sovereignty: China

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Why Conservatives Should Hate Our Foreign Policy

By Wesley Messamore

Who Controls Our Foreign Policy?

By Brandon DeMeo

Law or Hoax? Disproving Democratic Peace Theory

By Roy Antoun

Explanations for Continued Terrorism: Globalization and Lack of Democracy

By Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta

Epic Fail: How International Financial Institutions Are the Causes of World Problems

By Daniel Suraci

3

5

7

9

10

12

13

16

19

[email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222021



Letter From the Editor

Dear Reader,

As the Realist theory on foreign policy evolvedthrough history and the emergence of International Institutionsposed a challenge to international individualism, the Neo-Realist theory was born. Not to be confused with neoconserva-tism, 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, acknowledgesthat international institutions exist; however, states join themonly 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 nearfuture.

Collective action and international institutions haveeen 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 severalEuropean nation-states together under one common law. Not only did it fail, but it set a

recedent for future international institutions. The Napoleonic Code of the early 19th century ngered 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

regularities of collectivism. The rule of a few to dictate the policies of many gave us BenitoMussolini and, lest we forget, Adolph Hitler. States will forever operate within the framework

f their defined borders. They operate to ensure themselves power and security, even if it omes at the expense of others. As Machiavelli warned, those states that are too generousften empower those around them while weakening themselves. And that is precisely why ollective action and international institutions inevitably fail.

As of the past two decades, the United Nations and its numerous sanction-inducedapabilities 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. in-aded Iraq. And although the U.N. has wonderful humanitarian intentions, its legitimacy as a

ool to prevent war is comparable to that of a white flag with angry words written on it.

Roy M. Antoun

Want to write for the

Foreign Policy Handbook?

Contact [email protected]

Find us on the web:

http://yaliberty.org

Find us on Facebook

http://facebook.com/yaliberty

Follow us on Twitter

http://twitter.com/yaliberty

Of the Youth, by the Youth, for the Youth”

he objective of the Foreign Policy Handbook is to rationally discuss the faults in American

oreign policy and offer practical, liberty-minded solutions. Over the past century, our elected

eaders have collectively corrupted U.S. foreign relations into a hotbed of backfiring interven-

onism. It is the job of the youth to mobilize and inform, because it is we who will be paying

he price in blood and gold.

While views expressed in the articles do not represent all the members of YAL, they do express

he views of the respective authors. Young Americans for Liberty does not support or oppose

ny candidate for office.

http://www.yaliberty.org/FPH

Young Americans for Liberty | http://www.yaliberty.org | May 2010 [email protected] | P.O. Box 2751 Arlington, VA 222022



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

Does NATO Still Exist?

When it was ratified on April 9, 1949 in

Washington D.C., the North Atlantic Treaty brought

nto effect one of the largest mili-

ary alliance among nations in his-ory. NATO’s purpose from the start was to sway the

balance of power in favor of one of the two super-

powers at the time, the United States, in contrast to

he other world superpower, the Soviet Union. Lord

smay, NATO’s first Secretary

General once said that the organi-

ation’s primary goals were ―to

keep the Russians out, the Ameri-

ans in, and the Germans down.‖ NATO has since been proved a Cold War relic

hat should have seen its demise with the fall of the

Soviet Union in 1991. Unfortunately, just as other

overnmental bureaucracies linger long after their

tated usefulness, so too did NATO overstay its wel-

ome.

Today, NATO remains nearly two decades

fter the decline of its stated adversaries in the

members of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Em-pire. In the time since the soviet downfall, NATO

has constantly been trying to redefine its mission in

order to justify its continual existence – mission

reep.

Without the threat of a Soviet Russian attack

ong dead, NATO has now reestablished its mission

n such broad terms that almost any perceived

threat to any of its members constitutes a gen

response. The organization describes its cur

mission in that: ―As the nature of threats chan

so must the methods of preserving peace. NAT

reorienting its defense capabilities toward tod

threats. It is adapting its forces and developing n

multinational approaches to deal with terrorifailed states and other security threats such

weapons of mass destruction.‖

And while most scholars in the field of in

national relations could not perceive a world w

out NATO’s involvement, many ardent critics

NATO’s mere existence have been questioning

very purpose of the organization, both then

now, and the consequences it brings. Sen

Robert A. Taft, an old right Republican, was a sucious critic of NATO and thought that a post W

military alliance with European nations was a th

to the security of the United States. As one of

few voices of the day challenging imperialism

internationalism, Robert T

wasn’t comfortable in dedica

American soldiers to the affair

European conflicts and felt

the build up of a large intertional army would be a caus

war with the Soviet Union rather than a deterren

He believed that an alliance such as NA

would serve as an unnecessary means of provo

the Soviets into war and thusly voted against

ratification in the U.S. Senate.

Our involvement in such international

ganizations and alliances like NATO have led to

the perpetual imperialistic machine that has becour foreign policy; a foreign policy in which

warned against by many of our republic’s founde

In his farewell address, outgoing president Geo

Washington famously concluded that ―The g

rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nation

in extending our commercial relations, to have w

them as little political connection as possible.‖

also went on to state that ―It is our true polic

“And linking ourselves to the

quarrels of Europe is exactly

what we have done.”

PhotocourtesyofNATO

Jeremy Davis





teer clear of permanent alliances with any portion

of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at

iberty to do it; for let me not be understood as ca-

pable of patronizing infidelity to existing engage-

ments.‖ Thomas Jefferson reflected a similar belief

n his support for a non-interventionist foreign pol-

cy when he said "I am for free commerce with allnations, political connection with none, and little or

no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for link-

ng ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of

Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve

heir balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings

o 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 wouldustify its continued existence or the further involve-

ment of the United States would be quick to brush

side the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson.

More modern opponents to NATO such as

Congressman Ron Paul defend the vision of the

ounder’s foreign policy and the dedication to re-

raining ourselves from entering entangling alli-

nces. In opposing NATO’s involvement in Yugosla-

via and Kosovo in the 1990’s, Paul stated thatWithout the Soviet enemy to justify the European

military machine, NATO had to find enemies and

humanitarian missions to justify its existence. The

enturies-old ethnic hatreds found in Yugoslavia

nd the militant leaders on all sides have served this

purpose well.‖ NATO exists because the U.S. allows

t to exist. It burdens our foreign policy both diplo-

matically and economically as it selectively pro-

motes nation-building schemes that drain the budg-ts of member nations.

Despite all the philosophical, moral, and

practical justifications for why NATO should cease

o exist, NATO survives today because those inter-

sted in maintaining it seek its benefits through im-

perialism and feeding corporatist needs through ex-

pansion in arm sales to newly added members of the

organization.

It survives because the military indust

complex that President Eisenhower warned Am

cans of calls for it; and expanding NATO prov

the breathing room it needs to flourish.

Today, NATO represents nothing more t

an outdated, wasteful, imperialistic organiza

driven by a lust for military domination andmains a full fledged danger to American liberty.

Did You KnA report on Sunday, February 21 revealed that a NATO a

strike killed 27 civilians in one of the worst charades of n

combatant deaths in Afghanistan.

FEATUREDThis Month

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

By Craig Dixon

Why Conservatives Should Hate Our Foreign PolicyBy 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




oint/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010

erican 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

trength exhausted and your treasure spent, other

hieftains will spring up to take advantage of your

xtremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able

o 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

he aftermath of the September 11th attacks. In

2003 the war expanded into Iraq. Nine years later,

onventional U.S. forces remain in both countries,

with the blood-soaked conflict now spilling over the

borders into Pakistan. Anti-American sentiment in

he Middle-East continues to grow, with emerging

hreats in other nations beginning to manifest. No

bastions of liberty have taken hold in the region,

nd the institution of democracy remains precari-

ous.

This is the world America finds herself in to-

day, a world in which the threat of Islamofascism

emains... and is growing. The question to ask is

whether or not direct intervention (different from

urgical military engagement) by U.S. forces is fuel-

ng those flames.

Often, sentiment is expressed by other politi-

cal factions, both 'left' and 'right', that libertar

are too soft on war; it is said that libertarians fa

understand the necessary-evil of using mili

force to diffuse threats to liberty and safety. It m

escape both political camps that libertarian re

birthed the United States of America from the

of war against the British Empire.Few Americans, libertarians included,

disagree that when there is clear and present dan

to the security of American citizens, it is the rol

the United States military to engage and dif

those threats. However, libertarians also bel

that these engagements should be quick, hard,

decisive... and then they should end.

The problem, is that, America no lon

seeks to end conflicts. America is attempting build nations; America has protracted campa

that are dulling the morale of both Middle-East

citizens, and our own citizens... and giving our e

mies tangible weaknesses to exploit.

The foreign policy of today is the one Geo

W. Bush spoke out against when running for the

fice of President (before pulling a 180 in practic

office); "I think one way for us to end up viewe

the ugly American is to go around the world say'we do it this way, so should you'." One can also

at Senator John McCain's opposition to na

building in Somalia, which is in direct contradic

to his advocation of long-term presence in the M

dle-East; "For us to get into nation-building

[securing] law and order, I think is a tragic and

rible mistake."

A mistake indeed. Since invasion of t

Middle-Eastern countries, the world has witnesthe rise of popular extremist clerics like Sayyid M

qtada al-Sadr, a resurgent Taliban and Al-Qa

domestic acts of terror like the incident at F

Hood, and growing Anti-American sentim

around the world.

According to Sun Tzu, it is strategically

sound to have our conventional military forces

gaged in the long-term affairs of other nati

PhotocourtesyofTheWashingtonPost

Craig Dixon




oint/ Counterpoint | Young Americans for Liberty | The Foreign Policy Handbook | Issue II | May 2010

Given the failure of every contemporary attempt

hus far, the above quotations have been affirmed

quite decidedly.

Furthermore, subversive engagement, for

trategic advantage, has also proven to be an abject

ailure time and time again. Like monetary inter-

ention, heavy intervention into foreign affairs oftenproduces undesired consequences. While the con-

epts of liberty and democracy struggle to take hold

n Iraq, it must be noted that in the 1950s, secular

democracy had already entered the region. In 1953,

Operation AJAX, a CIA-led action, deposed the only

rue democratic government Iran has ever seen.

Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was over-

hrown at the behest of U.K. industrial interests who

were angry over Iran's nationalization of their oilields.

The years that followed created a power vac-

uum... which the CIA sought to fill. The attempt

ailed. The repressive monarch of Mohammad Reza

Shah poured gasoline onto Anti-American flames

nd paved the way for the Islamic

Revolution of the 1970s. Had

Mossadegh's secular government

emained in power, one mustwonder if the nuclear threat of a

militant Iranian state would even

xist.

The asymmetrical warfare be-

ween conventional U.S. forces

nd insurgents who blend into crowds is not allevi-

ting the war between islamofascism and the West.

Thus far, it is merely politicizing the Middle-Eastern

ulture into one more favorable to the sentiments of militant Islam. The longer the U.S. forces remain

present in the civil, social, and cultural affairs of

hese nations, the more opportunities the U.S. pro-

vides to stir up new hatreds and expose new weak-

nesses that opposing political forces will seek to ex-

ploit.

All interventionist actions have conse-

quences, those that craft western foreign policy

would be wise to begin taking into account the

litical, social, and cultural ramifications of such

terventions.

When a culture takes a reactionary stanc

intervention, this is what libertarians are refer

to when they use the term 'blowback'. There is

assertion from the libertarian camp that America nation is at fault for terrorism, only that her m

tary strategies are so unsound as to allow i

thrive.

This same principle applies not only

American foreign policy, but to foreign polic

every sovereign governing body and internatio

organization. Governments that intervene milita

and on a persistent basis into foreign cultures

always generate resentment and tension.The Treaty of Versailles is often cited as

spark for the Nazi ascension in post-Weimar G

many; undoubtedly, the heavy debt burdens

posed on Germany by the treaty were a contribu

factor to the Republic's demise.

Governing bod

like the United Nati

push 'do-gooder' interv

tion world-wide on the sproclaimed behalf of 'w

peace' and 'human p

gress'... but what have

implications been? Per

ual American involvem

in foreign conflicts. Most of the U.N.'s "pe

keeping" programs have turned into global secu

missions of nation-building thus perpetuating in

ventionist policy. The U.N.'s "peace-keeping" has itself become one, long, protracted mili

campaign, dragging the U.S. along for the ride.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the U.S.

become involved in numerous interventionist

erations in conjunction with U.N., from Bosni

Somalia, and others. The United Nations has a

less as a forum for airing grievances and promo

peace, and more as a self-appointed World Polic

“Governments that intervene

militarily and on a persis-

tent basis into foreign cul-

tures will always generate

resentment and tension.”





As the U.N. continues to pursue its own avenues for

perpetual intervention, the U.S. remains embattled

n Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recently, a leaked video clip captured footage

of U.S. forces mistakenly attacking and killing sev-

ral Iraqi Reuters reporters; the reporters were mis-

aken as insurgent forces. During the chaos, tworaqi children were injured. Their father, who was

ttempting to help the wounded reporters, died in

he attack.

The children were recently featured on Al-

azeera speaking out about the incident; "Why did

hey shoot us? Didn't they see we were only chil-

dren? The Americans wanted to kill us. Me, my

brother, and my father."

Hopefully, those two children grow up to bebusiness owners, journalists, doctors, or teachers...

est they succumb to the blood-lust for revenge. If

hey 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.

The European UnionEurocrats and the Eurospher

During the 19th and early 20th centur

European governments came under attack for t

colonial policies in the African

continent. One of the primary

claims made by pan-Africanists and other a

European individuals was that such European p

cies denied the peoples of Africa the right of

determination. For example, the Declaratio

Rights of the Negro Peoples of the World , drafte

a 1920 convention of the Universal Negro Impr

ment Association led by Marcus Garby, stated,

believe in the self-determination of all peopl

Through policies ranging from direct rule via m

tary force to indirect rule via forced economic

pendency, European governments were holding

rican countries back from determining their

course.

While the modern ―third world‖ certain

not free from the tethers of traditional western p

ers, the situation has greatly improved from wh

was a century ago. However, modern Euro

governments are now directly denying the righ

self-determination not to the peoples of other co

nents, but to the peoples of Europe itself. Consi

ing the rhetoric surrounding the European Un

such as a commitment to ―sustainable developm

and the goals of ―peace, prosperity and freedom‖

the people of Europe, this is a sad irony indeed.

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 onhe “left” side of our header and replaced him with a Realist and

iberty :)

Elliot Engstr





For a people to be able to determine their

own course, they must have the power to elect to of-

ice – and remove from office – the individuals who

make policy concerning trade, currency, banking,

borders, transportation laws, and a variety of other

ssues. However, the European Union is entirely

undemocratic in nature. The vast majority of deci-ions are made by the EU Commission, which is led

by unelected commissioners and an appointed bu-

eaucracy. The democratic element, the EU Parlia-

ment, has very few powers and very little influence.

The final element of the European political system,

he European Council, meets behind closed doors

nd typically makes secretive deals about which lit-

le is known. The incentive to care about the con-

erns of individual European citizens is marginal

ompared 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 Euro-

pean Constitution, is just one more example of this

ack of respect for the concerns of individual Euro-

peans. 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 citi-

ens economically liable for the decisions of people

with which they have absolutely no relations. Not

only is there a moral argument against this that

ould frame this policy as tantamount to theft on a

massive scale, but such international economic de-pendence also decreases the incentive for individual

nation-states to be economically responsible. In the

ame way that American corporations will take

reater risks when they know that the Federal Re-

erve and United States Treasury will bail them out,

o will the less economically prominent members of

he EU take greater risks and run larger deficits –

leverly disguised with the help of firms like Gold-

man-Sachs – if they know that they have econo

giants like the UK and Germany to bail them

when things go awry.

A final problem with the EU is the ma

amount of power that it wields, a power tha

greater than ever originally intended when the

was formed on the foundation of the EuroCommunity. The

European Commu-

nity was an eco-

nomic organization

solely to be active in

those areas that

seemed to mutually

benefit the member

states, but now theEU is expanding

into areas that would better be handled by indiv

ual nation-states due to factors like European di

sity and the different types of situations enco

tered in different European countries. The M

tricht Treaty of 1992 began this leviathan-es

growth, and led to the existence of such policie

the Common Foreign and Security Policy and

Justice and Home Affairs Policy. While an efforthis size can only summon so much evidence to

side, the ultimate goal is to encourage readers to

vestigate the ever-increasing scope of EU power

themselves. Such a study will likely reveal that

European Union is doing far more damage t

good.

Greek riots after the fall of the Euro, May 2010

Did You Know?hree people died in riots in Greece this month after the euro

ollapsed in this birthplace of democracy.





to American Sovereignty:

Sovereignty, the supremacy of political power

nation has over its own actions, seems to be in

hreat. Since the

ollapse of the So-

viet Union in 1991, the United States has experi-nced absolute hegemony in a uni-polar world.

However, as globalization intertwines markets and

ultures, our neighbors to the East are gaining eco-

nomic traction. As China continues to grow eco-

nomically while America seems

o be experiencing the Japanese

tagnation trend, sovereignty is

becoming weakened. This eco-

nomic trend will inevitably ompromise American political

overeignty, ultimately creating

new world order.

A national debt reaching over $12 trillion,

aused by extreme government spending, accounts

or the reason why American economic sovereignty

s being compromised. Major problems in govern-

ment waste, bailouts to private corporations, and a

rillion dollar overseas expenditure are causing thedebt to skyrocket. During the Obama Administra-

ion alone, the national debt has risen over $1.5 tril-

ion and continues to climb. Many economists re-

lect this trend in the weakening U.S. dollar, the re-

erve currency around the world. When compared

o the Chinese yuan, the U.S. dollar comes out

trong. However, China has left the Yuan low

mainly for an export advantage.

China is aware that if they keep their

rency at a lower rate than their consumers, in

case the U.S., they can sell more products

goods, giving them an economic advantage. At

same time, China recognizes the weakening do

and is trying to usurp it for other alternative

nominations. In a New York Times article, ProfeRoubini warns this troubling fact as China is

paring to have its currency be ―means of paymen

bilateral trade.‖ China has made light of its posi

towards the US dollar during the G20 summit

which it called for a new international trade

rency.

To help support American spending, Ch

has become the largest creditor of the world, le

ing $1 trillion in bonds to the United States alHowever, as time passes and America consu

more, China is becoming increasingly worried ab

its largest debtor nation. In March of 2009, Prem

Win Jinbao demanded that China be guaranteed

safety of American markets. These two factors p

out the crucial lack of so

eignty America is losing. In

first point, China own

treasuries and having the aity to become the credito

American spending shows

vulnerability of American sustainability. To c

expenditures, America depends on foreign state

credit its markets, as well as the Federal Reserv

create them.

China, thus, is beginning to create an

nomic upper-hand for itself. As the dollar weak

and China becomes worried about the safety Obama administration cannot provide, China

the power to sell (or dump) the treasuries. Secon

China’s ―demand‖ for safe markets strongly port

the former point, as China’s role in the world

comes stronger. American political decisions, e

cially towards the international community,

largely provided on the basis of its hegemo

China’s confidence to demand anything from

“China possesses one

thing the United States

doesn’t: human capital.”

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta





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 peo-

ple 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 depend-

nce on American consumerism. This remains the

ooming problem in many economists’ minds, as the

uture 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 becomerowing players in the international world. Ameri-

an sovereignty has already been compromised eco-

nomically and once the US is affected dramatically

by its weakening economic sovereignty, decisions

based on international circumstances will have to

arter to a more bi-polar political world. It is our

overnment of over-regulation and over-taxation

hat causes the private sector to loose more jobs due

o rising costs. Government policies can change toreate an economic and political change in this

ountry. If DC wants to remain in its position and

etain its sovereignty, it must change its economic

policies.

Why Conservatives Shoul

Hate

Our Foreign PolicLet’s take a moment to examine some m

stays of conservative thought: three total nnegotiables in the con-

servative worldview from

old standard-bearers like William F. Buckley, r

on down to the present-day Tea Party movement

Number one: conservatives do not like w

fare programs. They destroy productive capital,

distribute wealth, and sadly perpetuate pove

Number two: conservatives positively hate cor

rate bailouts (which are really just corporate wfare). They also destroy productive capital, re

tribute wealth, and incentivize risky behavior. N

ber three: conservatives do not take kindly to

expansion of Federal authority over the states

consolidates power in too few hands, it leaves d

sion-making to distant bureaucrats who don’t

derstand a state or city’s local needs, and it’s usu

just plain unconstitutional, violating the t

amendment.How does this apply to America’s present

eign policy? It commits all three sins against con

vative principles- and does so more extravaga

than perhaps any other government program or

icy. If American conservatives are averse to the

distribution of wealth from some Americans to

ers, how much more should they oppose the re

tribution of wealth right out of this country into

for the Foreign Policy Handbook?

Be a Patriot. Join the Movement.

Email the Editor:

[email protected]

Find us on the web: http://www.yaliberty.org/

Wesley Messamor





hands of the people of other countries? Aside from

more overt forms of foreign welfare, even our mili-

ary policy often amounts to little more than welfare

or the people of other countries. When our compas-

ionate conservative president, George W. Bush

bragged about the humanitarian nature of Opera-

ion Iraqi Freedom- he was bragging about expand-ng our welfare state to include recipients in other

ountries. Can conservatives honestly approve?

As for bailouts, or corporate welfare- the

number one factor that galvanized America’s resur-

ent liberty movement over the last two years- our

oreign and military policy are fraught with it. The

errible thing is how sneaky it is. If a lobbyist con-

vinces Congress to bail out their company with tax-

payer money, Americans can clearly see and opposehis policy as corporate welfare. But what if the lob-

byist gets Congress to award his company a contract

or services the government can convince taxpayers

hat it needs? Then the lobbyist and his company

an get away with the taxpayer’s money without in-

iting the taxpayer’s rage. But this is still corporate

welfare and it happens all the time- frequently in

he defense budget (which is one reason why de-

ense accounts for so much of the federal budget). Ist so hard to believe that not all our defense dollars

ctually make us more safe? That our politicians

ust might be lying to us and spending that money

o make their friends and lobbyists and donors

wealthier at your expense?

Finally- the more involved our federal gov-

rnment becomes in a foreign policy of never-

nding troop deployments, peace-keeping missions,

wars, occupations, permanent treaties and strategiclliances (like NATO and the UN), the more deci-

ions it necessarily makes for the several states

whether those decisions are best for each individual

tate or not. Concentrating so much power in the

hands of the federal government should make any

onservative wary, and our present foreign policy

does just that. It ensures that our federal govern-

ment takes more and more money from states and

decides how it should be spent, makes more

more decisions in one distant city (Washing

D.C.) that affect everybody else, and has rawer,

checked power over the states and the people

spectively. Conservatives should not be happy w

this state of affairs at all. While they may cheer

government’s decision to indefinitely detain potial terrorists without charges because it m

make us more safe, conservatives would do wel

remember that our government’s Departmen

Homeland Security considers them potential ter

ists.

It should be clear from our examination

these three mainstays of conservative thought,

conservatives (even more than socialist prog

sives) should be outraged at our present foreign icy.

Be the Catalyst

Join the F oreign Service

Visit <<http://careers.state.gov/officer/index.html>>

Be the change in the Washington Machine


http://careers.state.gov/officer/index.html






Our Foreign Policy?

Many different groups influence foreign pol-cy in the United States. The purpose of this article

s not to discuss in depth how each of the groups

that will be mentioned affect

foreign policy, but to men-

ion some major ones who do, and some resources

o study them further. This subject is often contro-

versial. I suggest studying them through the lens of

skeptic, but with an open mind.

The first group is the Council on Foreign Re-ations (CFR). They are ―an independent, nonparti-

an membership organization, think tank, and pub-

isher,‖ according to the official CFR website. Their

members include media personalities, globalist ce-

ebrities, and powerful politicians and bureaucrats,

mong others. Their members have exerted much

nfluence on our foreign policy since their founding

n 1921. While the CFR has no clear, discernable

genda, it is their individual members who influ-nce foreign policy, not the group itself.

The best book I have come across in re-

earching the CFR is The Shadows of Power: The

Council on Foreign Relations and the American De-

line, by James Perloff. It basically asserts the CFR

s a ―hidden oligarchy‖ of sorts, and even if you do

not agree with its conclusions, you will likely find it

a riveting read, and will learn a lot about the CF

the process. It should be noted the CFR has s

members which may be considered promoters of

cause of liberty, such as Amity Shlaes, author of

Forgotten Man, a free-market account of the G

Depression, which I recommend reading. Shlaes

senior fellow with the organization.Two other groups which, along with the C

are often accused of abetting in a globalist cons

acy are the Trilateral Commission (TC) and

Bilderberg Group. I have yet to come across any

erature which defends the two groups against a

sations made against them, which is mainly

they are working towards globalism and aga

American sovereignty. One book that offers ins

into both groups is The True Story of the BilderbGroup, the North American Union Edition,

Daniel Estulin. While it is hard to prove or disp

some of Estulin’s accusations, he does provid

very in-depth look into the history of both gro

as well as some attendee lists, which you may

surprising. No one can deny both groups exert m

sive power over American foreign policy. Presid

Jimmy Carter was a Trilateral Commission mem

himself, and President Bill Clinton attendeBilderberg Group meeting before becoming the

mocratic nominee in 1992. Remember that biz

moment during the 2008 election where Presid

Obama’s plane took off with a bunch of angry

porters inside, and no then-Senator Obama? M

allege that President Obama was actually attend

the 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting in Chant

Virginia.

The American Israeli Public Affairs Commtee (AIPAC), which calls itself ―America’s pro-Is

lobby‖ on its website, is influential in obtaining

government support for the Israeli government.

PAC makes the interests of the Israeli governm

paramount. For further study on AIPAC from a

ertarian angle I highly recommend the antiwar.

articles which pertain to them. Grant Smith w

an excellent article on how AIPAC spies on Am

Brandon DeMeo





ans. Philip Giraldi, whose writings often appear on

he 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

tudying the negative effects of AIPAC on our for-

ign policy.

While these are not the only groups whichnfluence 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

nd women first. They put their special interests

irst.

Disproving Democratic Peace Theory

Many academics and so-called politicians of-

en argue that Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) is

lose to becoming international relations law. While

many Libertarians and liberty-

minded individuals uphold the

mantras of free markets, advocating nation-building

or the sake of free trade is the philosophical equiva-

ent of Adam Smith resurrecting from his grave and

greeing with Vladimir Lenin on the science of his-

ory; it’s blind neoconservatism at best. Nation-

building-Democratic-Caliphates violate state sover-

ignty and induce blowback. DPT suggests that no

two democracies ever go to war with one ano

because, as Kant professed in Perpetual Peace, p

ple in an electoral system will never vote for a lea

who is willing to send them to war. He wrote,

“If the consent of the citizens is required in order to de

that war should be declared (and in this constitution it c

not but be the case), nothing is more natural than that

would be very cautious in commencing such a poor ga

decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war.”

Many fail to recall the evolution of dem

racy over the course of history. Democracies wer

born overnight, neither were they byproduct

some divine intervention or gift from god. Re

sentative governments evolved from thousand

years of feudal, oppressive systems that dictatedcial law and restricted the free flow of capita

means of serfdom, slavery, religion, excess ta

social control, and divine right. The Enlightenm

was a product of Feudalism, and even then,

teachings of Locke, Hume, and Voltaire took

other hundred years to be partially implemen

into European society. By the early 1800s, Napol

Bonaparte transformed the French Republic

the French Consulate which had three voting boand plural suffrage. France, under Napoleon,

administrative departments, established hig

education, a tax code, infrastructure systems, an

central bank. It had all the ingredients to make

E.U. eurocrat believe that Napoleon was the mis

link. And so did England. England had a parliam

with dual Houses, a House of Lords and a Hous

Commons. The United States had a function

Constitution and a representative body as well. France and England went to war for the better

of the early 1800’s, and England and the Un

States went to war within the same timeframe.

As Democracies evolved through revolu

and radical political reform, they also grew h

monic. Britain, with a representative Parliam

developed an empire that covered one-third of

globe. The English mantra soon changed to, ―

PhotocourtesyofFineOldArt.com

Roy Antoun





un never sets on the English Empire.‖ France ex-

panded into the Middle East and North Africa after

stablishing its Republic in the late 19th century.

Germany developed colonies through wars in South

Africa; the United States established protectorates

n Cuba, the Philippines, and the list expanded over

ime. Even recently, Americans reelected PresidentGeorge W. Bush in 2004 on the terms that he would

ontinue the colloquial ―War on Terror‖. Democra-

ies are not naturally peaceful; rather, they are a by-

product of whatever cultural elites sell it to be, in

his case, hegemonic. If the president woke up one

morning and decided that democracies operating on

non-Western standards would henceforth become

nemies of the U.S., it is almost guaranteed that, if

old properly, culture will follow long with the self-professed elite.

But this isn’t a matter ―if‖ the

president will do this – he already

has, hence, our distaste for states

uch as Egypt, Iran, Palestine, and

Venezuela.

However, Democracies not only go to war

with other states but also go to war with each other.

The War of 1812, fought between the United Statesnd parliamentary England, was the first example of

how two representational states were capable of

warring against one another. The Franco-Prussian

War of 1870-71 was fought between the French Re-

public and a parliamentarian, representative Prus-

ia. India and Pakistan, two parliamentarian gov-

ernments went to war with one another in the In

Pakistani war of 1965. The Falkland Island Wa

1982 was fought between Britain and Argentina

which both had representgovernments. Although many m

argue that these listed count

were not ―Democracies‖ in tod

Western standards, the

countries had wide representa

of some fashion or another with an electoral b

not limited to just aristocratic members of societ

Democratic Peace Theory is also a Wesinvention. Democracy within itself is a Western

vention and has been crafted by Western think

Immanuel Kant, author of Perpetual Peace, resi

in present-day Germany where the theory was

devised. By ―Western‖ I am eluding to the Hunt

tonian concept of the Cold War-Western W

which consisted of the United States, Canada,

Europe, minus South America and Russia; ―d

lords‖ and ―commies‖ need not apply when neocservatives reign the American Empire. This inv

tion does not suggest, however, that culture is

nately democratic; cultures are whatever their e

make them to be and are always prone to cha

Rather, Democracies have the dangerous poten

and tendency to be hegemonic, especially when

elected leaders wish to promote those ―democr

values‖ abroad. And hence, Democratic Peace T

“Governments go to war with one another; people do not.”

PhotocourtesyofPsyWar.org

The Falkland Island War: Two Democracies at War

War of 1812: Two Democracies at War





ory is born on this concept: if the world desires to be

ree, then democracies are obliged to make the

world free for the sake of perpetual peace. But per-

petual peace inevitably relies on perpetual war. As

ultures change, governments change. Democracy is

never permanent and neither is any form of govern-

ment. The only thing perpetual is the theory. Play-ng ―world police‖, or a real life version of RISK,

with the intentions of preserving democratic values

ventually drains economies for the military en-

orcement of said values. To ensure ―freedom‖, the

U.S. has fought over five major wars in the past cen-

ury which have only resulted in perpetual conflict

oday.

In an age where state governments dictate

ocial and economic policy, Democratic Peace The-ory will be put to a much greater test. The theory

lso suggests that states which trade with one an-

other are less likely to go to war due to fiscal de-

pendency. This is perhaps doubly more dangerous

han Engels’s prediction of a global communist

evolution. States that traded with one another

hroughout history have always gone to war, pre-

isely for economic reasons. The Anglo-Dutch Wars,

he War of 1812, and the World Wars, just to name aew, were sparked by states that already established

rade with one another or were angered over debt

nd mismanaged bureaucratic economies. Interven-

ion in the marketplace, like interventionism in for-

ign policy, gave the Nazi Party the parliamentary

majority in Germany and fascism in Italy. Democ-

acy is not permanent and that is the major flaw in

Democratic Peace Theory. Even if they were, gov-

rnment will always find new reasons to conductwar.

Governments go to war with one another;

people do not. Senator George McGovern once

tated, ―I’m fed up to the ears with old men dream-

ng up wars for young men to die in.‖ He was refer-

ncing how the ―old men‖ elected into office often

end young men to war and never vice versa. Why?

Because individuals are simply incapable of waging

war whereas the military-industrial complex is.

Nonintervention and open markets, howe

are a safer alternative to seeking a more peac

world. Democracies are, in essence, premature

publics. Allowing nations to determine their o

paths to republicanism (which is how most E

pean nation-states and the U.S. formed their gernments) is far safer than the nation-building m

tras of Democratic Peace Theory. Although this

ternative does not eliminate the possibility of wa

most certainly reduces it.

When governments become indebted to

another either fiscally or ideologically, they beco

vulnerable to war and discontent. When pr

businesses become indebted to one another, the

forced, under the rule of law, to settle mattersgally because they have no militaries. But gove

ments do and that is precisely what makes them

dangerous and volatile. That is why democracies

essentially hazardous without the rule of law. T

is why people have established republics; when p

ple stray from republican forms of government

adherence to law becomes moot even on an inte

tional level, states become prone to war and conf

Democratic Peace Theory is flawed and obsoletethese reasons. Democracy or not, so long as pe

allow the growth of the state, war will forever be

health of the state.

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





Explanations for

Historical: Bin Ladin’s Al-Qaeda

On September 11th, 2001, a day in which al-

most all Americans remember vividly, the images of

two towers collaps-

ing in the midst of

New York City, united a country in unprecedented

ways. The passion and patriotism that exploded af-er the traumatic events integrated the efforts of bi-

partisanship 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 na-ional security threats and bring vengeance on ter-

orist have failed. Our tactic and understanding of

errorism 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 ene-

mies. In other words, we must try to learn why they

feel they need to go to extreme measures to kill

west.‖— this first comes with the understandin

Middle Eastern history. The aftermaths of Sept

ber 11th didn’t give the public much time to pon

why they attacked ―us‖ before President Bush

nounced the nation. The President stated that

Qaeda’s motive for the attacks were solely basedthe hatred of ―our freedoms, our democracy and

wealth.‖ As a result, the nation believed this con

sion. Bin Ladin, used this for his advantage to

cruit more members into one of the largest terro

organizations in the world. In this paper, I will

plain how globalization and a ―lack of democra

have been used efficiently by terrorist organiza

such as Al-Qaeda.

In a speech made right after the attacks, Ladin stated the reasons and justifications for

actions. In what would become his 9/11 Spe

Ladin stated that the Middle East, ever since

forced break up of the Ottoman Empire after W

War 1, has been left weak and only governe

western states. Arab nations under the contro

mainly British mandate powers, never fully reac

sovereignty. They could never govern themse

the way they wanted to in their own holy laMoreover, Bin Ladin illustrated that military in

sions particularly from the United States have d

nothing but harm to the Arab nations. He elabor

on Afghanistan’s participation, headed by

United States, to end the Cold War. The US gave

Qaeda equipment to defeat the Soviets and sub

quently radicalize them for our own national se

rity interests at the time. A few years later, the

had sided with Iraq’s former and late dictator Sdam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war. We t

changed diplomatic ties with Iraq and put tr

sanctions that caused many to die of starvation

other related diseases. Additionally, Bin Ladin u

the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. Palestine

been unable to achieve territorial and judicial so

eignty while Israel gained independence in

1960s with Western support. Economic and mili

Marissa Yturralde-Giannotta





id from the US has been used in Israel against Pal-

stinians 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

nding of this aid and the US participation in Arab-

sraeli conflicts.

The Power of Globalization: Explanation #1.

While many states (Iran, Syria etc), even

hose who disagreed with the United States, showed

nitial sympathy for the attacks, the public was still

unconvinced of the war

he United States was

bout to wage in their

and. Globalization, or in-egrated global communi-

ation, has played a cru-

ial part in terrorism. The

ransfer of images, includ-

ng video and photos,

ives a live feed to the

vents happening in the

Arab region. In this case,

hese images are shown onmany television sets and

omputer screens accessible

o many Arabs. In Arab eyes, the chaos and destruc-

ion occurring is directly correlated to U.S. occupa-

ion in the region. Thus it is easy to connect that Bin

Ladin, in a wicked sense, becomes a ―freedom

ighter‖ to many Arab people. In some form, some

Arab people and even some states (indiscreetly) har-

bored a sense of satisfaction that America was now asting what the Arab world was tasting for years.

Even if it is right or wrong, Arabs directly point the

blame to the United States. Many critics of the Iraq

War, including, Congressman Ron Paul, point out

hat globalization is the main reason for continued

esentment towards the United States that inevita-

bly breeds terrorism. With our foreign policy being

displayed on all different kinds of mediums in the

region, we no longer possess soft power or ad

tion that most of the world did towards the Un

States.

The globalization theory also states that

―have-nots‖, or the impoverished, are encourage

take steps against the unjust actions occurrin

their state. Globalization creates a sense of rejecto the world’s progression that many of these ―h

nots‖ possess. This, however, is not consistent w

the findings as seen with terrorist organizations

though it does encourage a population to take

tion, most impoverished are not concerned wi

radical political age

that Bin Ladin is tryin

sell. Instead they bec

indifferent or in mcases oblivious to

events happening in

ternational politics a

or history. Because th

is a significant popula

living in rural and/or

poverished in the Mid

East, access to daily n

does not reach a percage of the people. Rat

the impoverished

solely concerned with the tasks of daily life t

some political agenda. Because globalization le

to prosperity and modernization, only the up

class, those who have leisure time, and/or th

considered intellectual, develop such feelings. Th

most terrorists, despite popular belief, are actu

the cultured of the Middle East who have accessity to world events rather than poor uneducated

ral ―have-nots.‖

Political Power Vacuum: Explanation

The years after 9/11, many in DC were c

vinced that a lack of democracy was one of the

rect causes of terrorism. This theory, consta

used by neo-conservatives and other politicians

Photo courtesy of OldAmericanCentury.Org

Can democracy be hegemonic?





erts that totalitarian states harbor more terrorists

because of the lack of individual rights, or in essence

democracy. Individual rights and liberties, including

hose in the Bill of Rights, provide protection of thendividual from the government. The government,

herefore, has checks and balances from the collec-

ive society. A totalitarian regime (a state that lacks

democracy), they advocate, leads to mass dissent

nd rebellion within the population, or in this case,

breeds terrorism. Thus, the United States views a

ack of democracy, especially within the Arab States,

s an environment in which terrorism can easily

pread because of the discontent dwelling in thepublic.

The problem with this theory is that empiri-

al evidence disproves its conclusion. While there is

political dissent in totalitarian regimes, most are

radicated quick and efficiently. The totalitarian re-

ime in Iraq exemplifies this notion. Saddam Hus-

ein’s regime would publically show its aggression

owards any dissenter. Furthermore, totalitarian re-

imes act as big brothers in the society, heavily monitoring culture; therefore, there is no room for

deas to develop or assemble under heavily moni-

ored societies (totalitarians, authoritarian). There

has been no evidence to support that Iraq was har-

boring terrorists or that terrorist activities were be-

ng conducted under the radar of the totalitarian re-

ime. Rather, because of the power vacuum that has

occurred, terrorism has grown in Iraq and has al-

lowed much mobility within the terrorist organ

tion to assemble and recruit. Without a legitim

government with actual policing force, an envi

ment is created where terrorists are allowed to c

tinue their work and move throughout border

influence and gather more recruits. For the Un

States, this means the supply-side of terrorismstill not being addressed.

Explaining the reasons for terrorism is by

means a justification towards it. Rather, by expl

ing the reasons on how terrorism is created, m

tained, and manifested it allows the United State

battle terrorism efficiently with potentially less

of life. However, seeing the continued resentm

the Arab people have towards the United Stateslustrates that American foreign policy regarding

region needs some viable change or more blowb

will undoubtedly occur. Its important to high

the historical reasons for the cause of this res

ment as seen in the Arab eyes. Globalization am

fies the resentment and a lack of democracy m

lizes it. Although these are not the sole two reas

for the continuation of terrorism, they are imp

tant to the understanding how terrorism is still to act discreetly, going through weak governm

infrastructure and becoming transnational (

now transcontinental with terrorism recruiting

Europe) organizations. As previously mentioned

have the United States efficiently battle terrorism

stop further loss of innocent lives, there must b

study of the supply-side of terrorism and how

Ladin and others alike have been using it to t

advantage.

YALIBERTY.ORG/FPH

PhotocourtesyofTheAge.com.au





Epic Fail:How International Financial Institutions

Are the Causes of World Problems

The International Monetary Fund (―IMF‖),

long with the World Bank, was created in 1944 at

the infamous Bretton Woods

Conference. The conference

s most commonly known for creating the dollar as

he reserve currency of the world after massive in-

lation during World War II destroyed most coun-

ries' currencies.

At conception, the IMF and World Bank were

understood to have been created in order to reestab-

ish 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

xchange and act as a lender of last resorts for in-

debted nations. Before World War II, the world

used an international gold standard for money.

Now, without a gold standard, the stated reasons for

reating the IMF was to make foreign currencies

vailable freely and sufficiently to promote trade.

Throughout the 1960s, the IMF and W

Bank both became more powerful. Now the

also functions to ―stop trade deficits‖. Nearly e

United Nations member is a member of both

World Bank and IMF and they are funded alm

entirely by membership fees. Or in other words

dollars.Most IMF and World Bank loans are gi

with stipulations. The money must be used in a

tain way or certain policies must be implemente

the liking of the IMF. Often this involves curre

devaluation or other monetary manipulations.

other times, it involves erecting trade barriers or

moving them. In this way, the IMF and World B

effectively bribe politicians of countries to enfo

policies that these unaccountable technocrats fit. Whether these policies are wise or not is not

issue but rather the perverse incentives created

the institutions to destroy the democratic proces

the countries to which the IMF and World Bank

fer loans. Worse yet, after these stipulations

made, if the government seeks forgiveness of d

often it comes with only more stipulations. La

this sort of massive loans to governments instea

credit-worthy private sector businesses encouraonly central planning, which has been shown to

consistently.

Furthermore, there is no democratic pro

for the citizens of the countries giving the loan.

IMF and World Bank is giving loans comple

while completely unaccountable to the people wh

money they are using for them. This ends in the

age of

Ameri-can tax-

payers

in a va-

riety of

ways that they would not approve. The IMF

World bank have funded various dictators over

years from Argentina to Zaire, many with poor

man rights records. Even though the loans

“With the advent of this fiacurrency, it allows massivearbitrary inflation of the global money supply.”

Daniel Suraci





iven with stipulations, money is fungible. This

means that when an international financial institu-

ion gives one million dollars to a dictator for

infrastructure projects‖ or ―food, blankets and ne-

essities‖, 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

MF and World Bank: that they are similar tools of

orporate welfare. When a government creates an

nfrastructure project, they must hire a company.

This tends to be a large American corporation which

ffectively lobbies for the job. The companies hire

conomists to use econometrics to show massive

rowth and sustainability, even where it does notxist. The governments then take out a massive

oan from the World Bank, and then use it to buy

he 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 forompanies are bad are the same for countries. Pri-

marily, (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.

preventing this reorganization, the IMF preven

country from resolving the mistakes which led

its collapse. The IMF has created its own fiat

rency called Special Drawing Rights (―SDR‖) wh

allow it to effectively give any country how

much money the IMF sees fit. Granted theysupposedly bound by their reserves, but in the

they can forgive the debt. The IMF cannot go ba

rupt.

With the advent of this fiat currency, it all

massive arbitrary inflation of the global money s

ply. While before, when the international stand

was gold, the money supply was limited by the fi

nature of gold. Now, the total money supply is

in check merely by technocrats. Obviously, thefect of this will be much more localized as the

connected in each country are paid with an arbit

amount of SDR , it acts in the same way that a F

eral Reserve increase in the money supply does

mestically. Again though, the IMF's inflation is

ated far from the reaches of any democratic pro

within the country's constituents.

Lastly, the IMF and World Bank prese

legal problem and not simply policy ones. Wherthe Constitutional authority to use federal

money to fund international institutions? E

though the executive is given the authority to cr

treaties, Congress must sign them, and can only

force provisions pursuant to their enumerated p

ers under the Constitution.

The IMF and World Bank show the failur

central planning and of bureaucracies over

over. In only this brief survey of the macronomic problems created by the IMF and W

Bank, they cause financial, monetary, legal, polit

and economic problems. This does not begin

touch on the actual effects felt in the microecono

affairs of the average citizen in the count

touched by these institutions. The IMF and W

Bank are unjustifiable, and serve only to waste

sources. As Dr. Ron Paul stated, ―The IMF is a r

In Next Month’s Issue of

F oreign Policy Handbook

In Depth Look at Greece & the Federal Reserve

Why Google Made the Right Decision

Will Afghanistan ever end? Wargaming!





of an era when power-hungry bureaucrats and de-

uded economists believed they could micromanage

he world's economy.‖ Today, it is time to move on

rom such delusion.


By the FPH Team



“Anyone who has ever looked intothe glazed eyes of a soldier dying

on the battlefield will think hard

before starting a war.”

- Otto von Bismarck

Documents

FPHandbook_issue2