Libertarianism and Non-Interventionism

[Nakura Chambers]

Most conservative and left-wing groups in the developed world are in agreement when it comes to membership in alliances such as NATO, ANZUS and others. However, it would seem that some groups outside of the mainstream policy-making circles (libertarians, fascists, communists, etc.) tend to be less supportive of alliances. For this topic, I would like to focus primarily on libertarians.

In the early days of American classical liberalism, military alliances were often viewed with skepticism. However, they were not entirely ruled out, as the Founding Fathers and post-revolutionary Americans formed temporary alliances with several countries, such as France during the American Revolution (and War of 1812), Sweden during the Barbary Wars, the Netherlands during the Sumatran Expedition, Britain & France during the Opium Wars, etc. However, these alliances seldom lasted following their respective conflicts.

Some early American classical liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson, took a more interventionist approach to foreign policy, believing that the United States should create an "empire of liberty." Jefferson's vision of democratic countries working together didn't bring about any long-standing alliances, however, as much of the world was still ruled by autocratic governments at the time. Several early policymakers continued Jefferson's ideas by attempting to build better relations with the fledgling Latin American countries, though no formal military alliances were ever formed.

The only major peace-time military alliance prior to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893, appears to be between the United States and Korea. Article I of the 1882 Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation stated:

Chosen, being a dependent state of the Chinese Empire, has nevertheless hitherto exercised her own sovereignty in all matters of internal administration and foreign relations. After the conclusion of this Treaty, the King of Chosen and the President of the United States shall treat with each other upon terms of perfect equality, and the subjects and citizens of the two nations shall maintain perpetual relations of friendship. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other shall render assistance and protection, or shall act as mediator in order to the preservation of perfect peace.

Source: http://photos.state.gov/libraries/ko...2%20Treaty.pdf

Modern libertarians are somewhat divided on the issue of military alliances. During the Cold War, most libertarians supported America's commitment to the defense of the free world. Libertarian political leaders, such as Gary Johnson, never wavered in their commitment to America's allies and even supported the Vietnam War. Libertarian-leaning authors during the Cold War, such as Robert A. Heinlein, wrote about the importance of the United States leading a "world government" to prevent a nuclear war.

Other Cold War libertarians, such as Ron Paul, were very critical of America's alliance system. Senator Ron Paul has long opposed American intervention and military cooperation between the free world. With that being said, Ron Paul has argued that World War II and the early stages of the War in Afghanistan were justified. He has also voiced some sympathy towards Israel, though believes that the United States should remain neutral if Israel's neighbors attack them.

Following Ron Paul's retirement, there seems to be a growing movement away from non-interventionist policy in libertarian camps. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's candidate in the 2012 presidential election, has stated that he supports military alliances and overseas American military bases in cases where it is legitimately beneficial to American security. Johnson has stated that he supports American alliances (and military bases in) Europe, Japan and South Korea; though he believes that our presence should be scaled back. Johnson supported the initial stages of the War in Afghanistan. Johnson has also voiced his support for Israel and has stated that he would use the American military to defend Israel's right to exist. Johnson has also argued for American aid to the Ugandan military in their conflict against the Lord's Resistance Army.

Despite Johnson's support for America's alliances with Europe, Israel, Japan and South Korea, he has been strongly opposed to many other conflicts. Johnson was critical of the Iraq War and NATO intervention in Libya. He has also stated that he would be very cautious in dealing with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, believing it is not a significant risk to the United States. Johnson has also argued that the United States should seek a diplomatic solution when dealing with Iran.

Ron Paul's own son, Rand Paul, has also been more supportive of a "realist" foreign policy. Rand Paul has supported the American-led coalition against the Islamic State. Rand Paul has also supported America's alliance with Israel, though he supports major reductions in aid to Israel. Like Gary Johnson, Rand Paul supports the existence of some American military bases in allied countries, though believes that they should be scaled down to a "necessary" size. Unlike Johnson, however, Rand Paul has voiced support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion.

Most libertarians in Europe support the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and close ties with the United States. Prominent British libertarians, such as Daniel Hannan, Nigel Farage and Pat Condell are among a few such NATO supporters. Daniel Hannan has supported Britain's close ties with the United States and the War in Afghanistan, however he opposed the Iraq War. Nigel Farage and the UK Independence Party also support NATO, but have opposed to intervention in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Pat Condell has defended Israel's right to defend itself and has publicly attacked Hamas and Hamas sympathizers.

With libertarians in the free world seemingly shifting from a strictly non-interventionist position to a more "cautious realism" position, I am curious as to what the libertarian members of this board think of American/European foreign policy. Are you supportive of NATO? Israel? South Korea? Taiwan? Is there ever justification for interventionism outside of self-defense? And are there any foreign military bases you would keep open (i.e. Japan, Korea)?

As for the poll, anyone can vote in it and express their views on each military alliance, regardless of their political views or nationality. Also, please note that while Singapore is a member of ASEAN, I have listed them separately, as some members might support Singapore as a country, but not ASEAN as a whole.

[Sledfang]

I think libertarians today are more concerned with the level of autonomy between their home nations government and themselves. Personally I would rather live under minimal statism rather than under heavily controlled nanny statism. Citizens do need some amount of protection from external influences, which is also why the government must act like a Night-watchmen.

As far as NATO, Western military alliances make sense as we have many shared values. Alliances between democracies have a special role in the world, but that is not to say that we cant be peaceful with non-democracies. I think the West is moving towards non-interventionism, but with so much long-lasting political tension its going to be a long time before we can safely leave places like the Middle East to themselves. Just like economies are big tankers that take a long time to turn around, it is the same way with our militaries as well as the geo-political-cultural-religous issues that are present inside some 3rd world countries.

[ringpriest]

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else." -Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Any self-proclaimed "libertarian" or "Libertarian" who advocates foreign intervention is wrong - either about what libertarianism is, what they themselves are, or both.

[Sledfang]

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else." -Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Does that include Subs with SLBM's? In an age where we have surpassed conventional warfare and face both nuclear and asymmetric warfare, we really need at least some blue water navy. Losing far away subs as a strategic deterrent would be giving Russia/China a ridiculous advantage, especially since ICBM's were headed away from being MIRV. Also without at least 1 foreign base in each major region, that would mean we need at least 1 carrier for long distance tactical operations on emerging threats from non-nuclear powers. We really should not be taking advice from a dead 130 year old Marine General.

There is a whole group of people who think that the US/Nato is the root of contemporary global military problems and that if we just powered down, then the threats would go away. That is a naive and dangerous notion.

[lockedout]

"I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else." -Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Any self-proclaimed "libertarian" or "Libertarian" who advocates foreign intervention is wrong - either about what libertarianism is, what they themselves are, or both.

Smedley was such a boss.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a whole group of people who think that the US/Nato is the root of contemporary global military problems and that if we just powered down, then the threats would go away. That is a naive and dangerous notion.

What threats do we face? Do you think we would get invaded?

[Naxere]

The less time and money (and lives) we spend playing Global Police, the better. Take 20% of our military budget and spend it back home.