Category Archives: Foreign Policy

An Obituary For Pinochet By George Reisman

BAB's A List, Economy, Foreign Policy, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Socialism

Left-liberals do their demented St. Vitus Dance every time Augusto Pinochet is mentioned. Now that the General is dead, Prof. George Reisman puts paid to the myths the left (and the right, increasingly) has propagated about him.

George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. His website is www.capitalism.net. and his blog is at www.georgereisman.com/blog/. Prof. Reisman is also a regular on BAB (see BAB’s A List).
I’m taking this opportunity to let you know that forthcoming on BAB is an exclusive piece by another fabulous and formidable libertarian thinker, Thomas Szasz. Stay tuned.—ILANA

AN OBITUARY FOR PINOCHET BY GEORGE REISMAN

General Augusto Pinochet Is Dead.

On Sunday, December 10, General Augusto Pinochet of Chile died, at the age of 91. General Pinochet deserves to be remembered for having rescued his country from becoming the second Soviet satellite in the Western hemisphere, after Castro’s Cuba, and, like the Soviet Union, and Cuba under Castro, a totalitarian dictatorship.

The General is denounced again and again for the death or disappearance of over 3,000 Chilean citizens and the alleged torture of thousands more. It may well be that some substantial number of innocent Chilean citizens did die or disappear or otherwise suffered brutal treatment as the result of his actions. But in a struggle to avoid the establishment of a Communist dictatorship, it is undoubtedly true that many or most of those who died or suffered were preparing to inflict a far greater number of deaths and a vastly larger scale of suffering on their fellow citizens.

Their deaths and suffering should certainly not be mourned, any more than the deaths of Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, and their helpers should be mourned. Had there been a General Pinochet in Russia in 1918 or Germany in 1933, the people of those countries and of the rest of the world would have been incomparably better off, precisely by virtue of the death, disappearance, and attendant suffering of vast numbers of Communists and Nazis. Life and liberty are positively helped by the death and disappearance of such mortal enemies. Their absence from the scene means the absence of such things as concentration camps, and is thus ardently to be desired.

As for the innocent victims in Chile, their fate should overwhelmingly be laid at the door of the Communist plotters of totalitarian dictatorship. People have an absolute right to rise up and defend their lives, liberty, and property against a Communist takeover. In the process, they cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process. They must act quickly and decisively to remove what threatens them. That is the nature
of war. The fate of innocent bystanders, largely those who cannot be readily distinguished from the enemy, is the responsibility of the Communists. Had they not attempted to impose their totalitarian dictatorship, there would not have been any need to use force and violence to prevent them, and thus the innocent would not have suffered.

Contrary to the attitude of so many of today’s intellectuals, Communists do not have a right to murder tens of millions of innocent people and then to complain when their intended victims prevent their takeover and in the process kill some of them.

General Pinochet was undoubtedly no angel. No soldier can be. But he certainly was also no devil. In fact, if any comparison applies, it may well be one drawn from antiquity, namely, that of Cincinnatus, who saved the Roman Republic by temporarily becoming its dictator. Like Cincinnatus, General Pinochet voluntarily relinquished his dictatorship. He did so after both preventing a Communist takeover and imposing major pro-free-market
reforms, inspired largely by Milton Friedman (who in large part was himself inspired by Ludwig von Mises). The effect of these reforms was to make Chile’s the most prosperous and rapidly progressing economy in Latin America, Thereafter, in the words of his New York Times’ ‘largely hostile’ obituary, he used his remaining power to “set limits, for example, on economic policy debates with frequent warnings that he would not tolerate a return to statist measures.”

General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits after voluntarily giving up his dictatorship.

When General Pinochet stepped down, he did so with a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for his actions while in power. However, the present and previous regime in Chile violated this agreement and sought to ensnare the General in a web of legal actions and law suits, making the last years of his life a period of turmoil. This was a clear violation of contract, comparable to the seizure of property in violation of contract. Not surprisingly the regimes in question were avowedly socialist. As a result of their breach, it is now considerably less likely that the world will soon see any other dictator voluntarily relinquish his power. The Chilean socialists will have taught him that to be secure, he must remain in power until he dies.

*****

Dictatorship, like war, is always an evil. Like war, it can be justified only when it is necessary to prevent a far greater evil, namely, as in this case, the imposition of the far more comprehensive and severe, permanent totalitarian dictatorship of the Communists.

Despite the fact that General Pinochet was able to use his powers as dictator to enact major pro-free-market reforms, dictatorship should never be seen as justified merely as a means of instituting such reforms, however necessary and desirable they may be. Dictatorship is the most dangerous of political institutions and easily produces catastrophic results. This is because a dictator is not restrained by any need for public discussion and debate and thus can easily leap headlong into disasters that would have been avoided had there been the freedom to criticize his proposed actions and to oppose them. And even when his policies may be right, the fact that they are imposed in defiance of public opinion operates greatly to add to their unpopularity and thus to make permanent change all the more difficult.

On the basis of such considerations, when asked many years ago what he would do if he were appointed dictator, von Mises replied, “I would resign.”

A Chronicle of American Interventionism

America, Foreign Policy, War

In a new book, Overthrow, Stephen Kinzer chronicles America’s interventions in foreign countries. Writes Brian Urquhart for The New York Review of Books:

Kinzer describes three periods of American intervention: first the “Imperial Era” between 1893 and 1910 (in Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, and Honduras); second, the “Covert Action period” between 1953 and 1973 (in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile); and third, the “Invasions” since 1983 (in Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq). The original announced aim was to help anti-colonial patriots to achieve success, as in Cuba and the Philippines; and then, to the patriots’ surprise, the US would establish an authoritarian protectorate.

Especially startling are “The parallels between McKinley’s invasion of the Philippines and Bush’s invasion of Iraq.” As Kinzer see it:

Both presidents sought economic as well as political advantage for the United States. Both were also motivated by a deep belief that the United States has a sacred mission to spread its form of government to faraway countries. Neither doubted that the people who lived in those countries would welcome Americans as liberators. Neither anticipated that he would have to fight a long counterinsurgency war to subdue nationalist rebels. Early in the twenty-first century, ten decades after the United States invaded the Philippines and a few years after it invaded Iraq, those two countries were among the most volatile and unstable in all of Asia.

Continuous Cronyism Update: Pretend the Ports Were Private

Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Government, Private Property, The State

DP World is owned by the government of Dubai, which is, in turn, “one of seven emirates that form the federation known as the United Arab Emirates.” This state-owned corporation will soon be operating port facilities in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans and Newark, N.J. The deal embroils politicians—ours and theirs—in the usual tangled and tainted interests.

For instance, after Katrina struck, the UAE gave the U.S. government 100 million for disaster relief. Talks about the ports began shortly afterwards. Quid pro quo? CorpWatch alludes to an intricate web of war profiteers. Like Halliburton and other well-connected American companies, the Dubai conglomerate “does brisk war business.”

Tracing the slimy trail of the Bush administration and its corporate cronies reveals that Treasury Secretary John Snow “was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004.” Another edifying tidbit from the New York Daily News has it that “David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations…was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.”

Also, former Congressman Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican, is a consultant to the United Arab Emirates; and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole is a “fixture” at Alston & Bird LLP—a company that’ll be consulting and lobbying privately for DP World. Bling-bling (as in the sound of a cash register, not a rapper’s accoutrements)!

If U.S. ports were private, and not state run; if the deal were devoid of the cupidity and corruption that comes with government “enterprise”—all those politicized paybacks—then it is more than likely that the private property owners involved would react just as Americans have reacted to the involvement of a Middle-Eastern, state-owned company in the management of their ports. Most Americans are against this deal; only 17 percent approve.

If ports were privately owned, their proprietors would have to underwrite the endeavor and would thus be extra cautious, since it would fall to them—and not to taxpayers—to cover the costs of an attack. There’s no doubt that port owners would then express the same trepidations most Americans are now voicing over who manages—and has easy access toâ€”their ports. Why, in a free market, even the perception of insecurity would cause insurance costs to skyrocket. Fairness doesn’t factor into this.

In all likelihood, if ports were privatized, we’d be witnessing a similar reaction. Right or wrong, the UAE would probably not be doing a rip-roaring trade in managing ports. So, to the extent that popular response to the Dubai deal mirrors what would transpire under private property, it’s neither unethical nor unreasonable; it is what it is.

When the issue at stake is near and dear to their hearts, people become propertarians.

* Related Reading: Whose Property is it Anyway?

Letters From ‘The Front’

Foreign Policy, Iraq, Just War, War

Sifting through IlanaMercer.com’s archives, I found some of the many missives WorldNetDaily’s intrepid editors fielded about my coverage of the invasion of Iraq. Some of the comments were even more cutting than the hereunder. The letter’s date suggests Mr. Carr was piqued over the following pieces (among others): In bed With the Military, ‘Just War’ for Dummies, Tuned-Out, Turned-On and Hot for War, U.S.: Global Governor? Betraying Brave Boys, etc. To their great credit, most of the readers I hear from these days no longer support the war. —ILANA

From: Tim Carr
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003
To: David Kupelian
Cc: jfarah@worldnetdaily.com
Subject: Awful Ilana

Guys, I am about to boycott your splendid web site.

I am getting sick and tired of Ilana Mercer bashing the United States of America. If she (and anyone else for that matter) really feels that the current form of government is as corrupt and evil as she suggests it is, then she has but one of two choices: run away and hide, because a government that is as corrupt as she suggests cannot be stopped nor can it be trusted and is capable of any level of malevolence; or two, get a gun, march to DC and start an armed revolution, because her vote is worthless, democracy is a sham and a vote cannot and will not fix it.

As for me and my house, I am getting tired of seeing her anti-American sentiments being passed off as Old Right, legitimate conservatism. More to the point, I am getting tired of seeing her vitriol being bandied about on World Net Daily. Her views are so … out of touch with other contributors on your web site that she might as well just come right out and say that she wishes the US would lose the war in Iraq (Oh yes, I know, she supports our troops, she just does not support the USE of force in this war. That sound you hear is me yawning, and if my yawn were any bigger we would need to map it out and give it a name. Please, spare me that double speak.)…

Ilana and I have exchanged quite a few e-mails. Some of them were heated. They never really rose above the level of political debate. Strong views were expressed on both sides. I even called her a nut case and loopy in one instance. So, I came away from the exchange frustrated. I was frustrated, as I often am, because something was gnawing at me, and I could not pinpoint what it was. So, as I lay in bed thinking to myself, I had some revelations. Here is what I learned.

I love reading Ilana’s stuff. I always have, that is, until the last 4 months. Lately, some of the foundational underpinnings of her beliefs have come to the forefront and I have found myself increasingly offended by her comments and more and more critical of her work. What is interesting to me is that I tricked myself into thinking that I disagreed with her politics, and I was roped into this line of reasoning by way of Ilana’s rhetoric. Make no mistake, Ilana is brilliant. But what I failed to see is that Ilana is suffering from political tunnel vision. By this I mean that for all of Ilana’s erudite, political exegesis, her rhetoric never rises above the level of political debate [natural rights and Just War Theory, my purview, fall within the philosophical realm, surely.—ILANA]

Because of Ilana’s political tunnel vision, she is missing the most crucial lesson of Iraq. What is happening in Iraq has nothing to do with politics. This war is unlike any other, accept for maybe WWII, but even WWII takes a back seat to Iraq in terms of what is at stake here. This war is about nothing less than the survival of humanity. What we are talking about is a struggle of cosmic proportions between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, God and Satan, Man and demon. This struggle transcends the petty balance of control in the Senate and House. It transcends the debate of who is a true conservative, neo or paleo. This cosmic struggle relegates the notions of global expansion and democracy vs. communism to the level of petty strife

Do you subscribe to her isolationist views? If so, please let me know and I will make sure to avoid WND from this point forward. [“Isolationism” in this context is used to discredit individuals who do not support recreational, unprovoked wars—ILANA]

Thanks
—Tim Carr