In previous posts, I’ve criticized the US for bullying other countries to adopt our policies on issues such as tax evasion. Here’s an excerpt from a 2015 post:
It seems breathtakingly arrogant for the US to insist that other countries have the same privacy laws that we have. But this is worse. How would you describe a country that used its awesome power to intimidate small countries to abandon their long cultural tradition of protecting privacy, and then turned around and drew in vast amounts of ill-gotten gains from overseas by shielding those investments from public scrutiny?
Today the problem is far worse. Back in 2015, the US bullied countries on issues where there was substantial international support for the American position. Today, the US is the outlier, and yet we continue to bully smaller nations. Consider the following two facts:
1. There is very widespread support among developed nations for the Iran nuclear deal.
2. There is very widespread opposition among developed nations to launching international trade wars.
You might be thinking that just because other countries favor a policy doesn’t mean the US must go along. If so, you are exactly right. Indeed, this is precisely my point. Centralized decisions tend to be dangerous because if they are mistaken then the damage is far greater than if just a single country adopts the policy. One reason the UK is leaving the EU is that the EU went too far, legislating on issues best left to national or local governments.
Unfortunately, the new administration does not believe in decentralization, and is trying to force the entire world to follow the US lead. That would be unfortunate if the US policies still reflected the global consensus, but today it’s far worse. The US is attempting to force other countries into adopting policies that are widely viewed as misguided. Thus the US recently bullied Canada into agreeing not to do a free trade agreement with China. We bully foreign countries to stop doing business with Iran, threatening to cut off access to the US banking system if they do not comply.
Conservatives have traditionally favored a more decentralized approach to policy, as a way of minimizing the damage caused by misguided government policies. Many of today’s conservatives seem to have abandoned that wise approach, and now favor using the economic power of the US to interrupt international trade with other countries.
Hasn’t it always been like this? Not as far as I know. The US has long refused to trade with Cuba, but in the past we didn’t prevent other countries from doing so.
I don’t have firm views on foreign policy. But I do know one thing—no one can claim any sort of certainty as to the best policy regime for international affairs. You may have strong views one way or another on China and Iran, but other equally well informed people will have different views. In a world of uncertainty, modesty is the best option.
READER COMMENTS
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 11 2018 at 4:58pm
This is a very important argument. And it is of course even more important as the U.S. has changed from a beacon of liberty to a beacon of surveillance. Note how Trump claims to be defending “national sovereignty,” but then acts as if the “sovereignty” of the U.S. government trumps other national governments’ “sovereignty.” (That’s a pun for the masses.) Of course, he is not known as the king of consistency.
Scott Sumner
Oct 12 2018 at 1:12am
Pierre, Yes, the attitude toward sovereignty is kind of ironic.
Benjamin Cole
Oct 12 2018 at 10:46pm
There is a lot of tension inherent in this discussion.
If we are globalists, then we should advocate for globalist government, despite the costs of centralization.
If we wish for non-global government, then we must offer an alternative. Sovereign nations appears to be the present option.
If so, I then expect sovereign national governments to reflect the interests of the sovereign nation and its citizens. I do not expect a globalist approach.
My own preference is for a world of city states, no militaries and no wars.
Worth pondering: much of commerce has grown from regional to national to now global enterprises. These global enterprises have no obligations, but to shareholders.
The global corporations are the backbone and money of the globalist movement. That being the case, how should a citizen in any particular sovereign nation view the globalists?
If globalists appear to be in control of the capital of your particular nation, should you take umbrage?
If the US military appears to be a global guard service for global enterprises, should US taxpayers take umbrage?
dede
Oct 16 2018 at 11:45pm
“no one can claim any sort of certainty as to the best policy regime for international affairs”
How about the exact opposite to Trump’s moves?
“US bullied countries on issues where there was substantial international support”
If you are referring to FATCA, the US actually bullied the banks, no need to go after countries. But it is true that the other countries liked it so much that they implemented CRS (Common Reporting Standards) which is very much inspired by FATCA.
The irony is that the US gave them the finger by not participating in this grand delation scheme because FATCA is already in place for the benefit of the US. But the bullying was copied : Hong Kong had to implement CRS whereby they have to report foreigners’ financial activity in exchange for receiving their own citizens’ financial activity abroad, for which the government could not care less because it is not taxable in Hong Kong…
Comments are closed.