Alex Tabarrok quotes from an interview of French Ambassador Gérard Araud:
I don’t think that anything irreparable is happening in the U.S. I don’t know what would have happened in France if Marine Le Pen had been elected, because our institutions are much weaker.
Let’s look at the dogma of the previous period. For instance, free trade. It’s over. Trump is doing it in his own way. Brutal, a bit primitive, but in a sense he’s right. What he’s doing with China should have been done, maybe in a different way, but should have been done before. Trump has felt Americans’ fatigue, but [Barack] Obama also did. The role of the United States as a policeman of the world, it’s over. Obama started, Trump really pursued it. You saw it in Ukraine. You are seeing it every day in Syria. People here faint when you discuss NATO, but when he said, “Why should we defend Montenegro?,” it’s a genuine question. I know that people at Brookings or the Atlantic Council will faint again, but really yes, why, why should you?
I agree with the bit about America’s institutions being strong, but the rest seems disappointingly superficial to me. Let’s take the points one by one:
Why should we defend Montenegro?
Let’s apply a cost/benefit analysis to this question. Start with the benefits. During the 1990s, a series of wars in the former Yugoslavia killed over 100,000 people. Eventually the US became involved, even though the area was not a part of NATO. Having Montenegro join NATO reduces the already low probability of a Serbian invasion to basically zero. That’s a benefit. Consider the fate of countries that are not a member of NATO, such as Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
As far as costs, I don’t see any. NATO’s combined military strength is already greater than the rest of the world combined, even before Montenegro joined. We don’t need to beef up our military to defend Montenegro, we already have a military that is strong enough to deter a Serbian invasion of Montenegro.
If you don’t like that “green eyeshades” answer and want something more poetic, consider the history of NATO countries in the 70 years before NATO was created, and the 70 years since its creation. NATO is not perfect, but it’s arguably the most successful international organization in all of world history, by far.
Let’s look at the dogma of the previous period. For instance, free trade. It’s over.
If he means the dogma of free trade is over, he’s right. But who cares? Nothing much is happening to the reality of free trade. Global trade is roughly as free as 10 or 20 years ago.
Trump is doing it in his own way. Brutal, a bit primitive, but in a sense he’s right. What he’s doing with China should have been done, maybe in a different way, but should have been done before.
But what exactly is Trump doing? He demanding that China adopt a more free trade regime, which would boost Chinese exports to America. Is that consistent with the previous claim that free trade is “over”? Or maybe he is referring to demands that we “get tough”. Again, what does that mean? Ousting China from islands in the South China Sea would indeed be getting tough, but that’s not what Trump is doing. Demanding that China become a more free market economy, and hence a richer and more powerful rival to the US, is an odd way of getting tough with a country.
I understand that the French have never liked neoliberalism, and that some are not happy that the EU keeps signing free trade agreements with countries like Canada and Japan. But wishing something doesn’t make it true, and there is little evidence that the world is moving away from free trade in any meaningful way. Yes, there are still some trade barriers, but that’s always been true. Each year a few more are added and a few are removed.
This isn’t to say that he’s wrong about the rhetoric. The neoliberal rhetoric of recent decades has given way to the nationalist rhetoric of the 2010s. But the reality on the ground has not reflected that change. For instance, the Trump administration has some pretty harsh things to say about illegal immigration, but the rate of illegal immigration into the US is surging, partly due to the policies of Trump himself (stronger economic growth, less foreign aid to Central America, failure to compromise to get a wall, etc.) I’m not the first to notice that Trump ran as a populist but has often governed as a country club Republican (deregulating banks and big corporate tax cuts but no infrastructure program, no reduction in trade deficits, no reduction in illegal immigration, no increase in the minimum wage, and no real plan to save manufacturing.)
Intellectuals focus too much on interesting rhetoric and too little on mundane reality.
READER COMMENTS
John McDonnell
Apr 28 2019 at 2:40pm
I am not an expert but I believe that actually intervening in conflicts is generally extremely expensive above and beyond the cost of maintaining a peaceful standing army. Obviously the fact that we already have an army lowers the cost but it is not free. Every cruise missile costs millions, and contemporary military equipment is generally very expensive, not to mention the political costs of actually putting boots on the ground and potentially being mired in a years-long conflict.
I actually think more should be done, for example Ukraine might really be an example where NATO should just send in troops and clear out “Novorossiya” of the Putin funded paramilitaries. But it definitely wouldn’t be cheap.
Garrett
Apr 28 2019 at 3:40pm
If Sumner’s correct that joining NATO reduces the probability of invasion to basically zero, then the probability-weighted cost of actually defending the area is also very low.
Scott Sumner
Apr 28 2019 at 4:56pm
Garrett’s exactly right, that is my argument. We fought a war in the Balkans during the 1990s precisely because Bosnia and Kosovo were not a part of NATO
E. Harding
Apr 28 2019 at 9:27pm
Kosovo was not even considered by anyone a country at the time at all; it was a part of Serbia. The Bosnian war was a civil war.
Philo
Apr 28 2019 at 4:05pm
“Intellectuals focus too much on interesting rhetoric and too little on mundane reality.” This would make a worthy addition to Tyler’s “Very Good Sentences.”
Benjamin Cole
Apr 28 2019 at 8:25pm
As for international interventionism, let us ponder Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Oh, maybe 10 trillion dollars spent with counterproductive results and plenty of human carnage. Oh, and such wonderful results in Syria and Libya. Oh, and a couple hundred million cluster bombs left in Laos.
And a dread feeling that multinationals determine US foreign military and trade policy. The US military has become a global guard service for multinationals.
Scott Sumner
Apr 29 2019 at 12:29pm
Those examples make NATO look even better by comparison.
E. Harding
Apr 29 2019 at 3:29pm
NATO caused the civil wars in Libya and Syria, Sumner.
E. Harding
Apr 28 2019 at 9:25pm
“Having Montenegro join NATO reduces the already low probability of a Serbian invasion to basically zero.”
And increases the probability of further NATO aggression against Serbia. NATO is an aggressive, not a defensive organization.
“As far as costs, I don’t see any.”
Ever heard of Libya? Syria? Yugoslavia? Were those not costs?
“We don’t need to beef up our military to defend Montenegro”
That’s not the question. The question is, how much would our military shrink if not for NATO commitments.
“Consider the fate of countries that are not a member of NATO, such as Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.”
The Ukraine war would never have happened were it not for NATO.
“NATO is not perfect, but it’s arguably the most successful international organization in all of world history, by far.”
Yeah; Libya, Syria, and Yugoslavia are definitely in great condition now.
“If you don’t like that “green eyeshades” answer and want something more poetic, consider the history of NATO countries in the 70 years before NATO was created, and the 70 years since its creation.”
Sumner, you know what a non sequitur this is. Without NATO, there would have been no Warsaw Pact, and no further incentive whatsoever for the great powers to fight. It heightened tensions during the Cold War; it did not reduce them.
I think my previous criticisms have been too light.
“Global trade is roughly as free as 10 or 20 years ago.”
Not with Iran, Russia, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.
“Intellectuals focus too much on interesting rhetoric and too little on mundane reality.”
Indeed. I don’t see why you think yourself the exception.
Scott Sumner
Apr 29 2019 at 12:45pm
I disagree with all of those points. NATO is a separate issue from US foreign policy errors, of which there are many. The Soviets caused the Cold War, not the US. The same is true of their invasion of Ukraine. Trade is roughly as free as 10 years ago, even with North Korea.
E. Harding
Apr 29 2019 at 3:28pm
“The Soviets caused the Cold War, not the US.”
No. Both sides contributed to the start of the Cold War, but America was much more proactive at the arms race aspect.
“The same is true of their invasion of Ukraine.”
The Soviet Union is gone and Ukraine was always part of the Soviet Union. There would have been no reason for Russia to have supported the Donbass insurgency were it not for the need to contain a hostile military alliance.
“Trade is roughly as free as 10 years ago, even with North Korea.”
Which of my examples do you disagree with?
E. Harding
Apr 29 2019 at 3:29pm
“NATO is a separate issue from US foreign policy errors”
How?
Benjamin Cole
Apr 29 2019 at 6:21am
There must be an epidemic out there. This is from CNN:
People are losing faith in capitalism. The world needs a new approach
By Michael Klowden for CNN Business Perspectives
Updated 1404 GMT (2204 HKT) April 28, 2019
Surveys suggest that a growing number of people are losing faith in capitalism and the free market system, convinced they are being — or will be — cast off as detritus in the wake of globalization and advancing technology.
These sentiments are helping to fuel political polarization and populism in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.
Last year, a Gallup survey found that only 45% of young adults in the United States have a favorable view of capitalism, while 51% see socialism in a positive light. Among all US adults, only 56% gave capitalism a positive rating, the lowest since 2010……
—30—
Like I say, a couple generations of tight, tight job markets is the tonic the US needs…..
Or, salute AOC in 2028…maybe Bernie in 2020?
Daniel Kahn
Apr 29 2019 at 10:35am
None? Imagine! Scanning the other rebuttals I don’t think I saw the most obvious one. Russia hates NATO expansion and is definitely antagonized by it, especially countries near their border, especially former SSRs or Eastern block nations. Even if you think that cost is outweighed by the meager benefits of having a country like Montenegro in NATO it should not be discounted to nothing. It could be a causal factor in future Russian aggression.
Scott Sumner
Apr 29 2019 at 12:36pm
Daniel, Of course Russia hates NATO expansion. It limits their ability to do to other countries what they did to the Ukraine. That’s a huge plus.
E. Harding
Apr 29 2019 at 3:25pm
“It limits their ability to do to other countries what they did to the Ukraine.”
There was absolutely no reason for Russia to support the Donbass insurgency/support South Ossetia+Abhazia were it not for fears of NATO expansion.
Todd Kreider
Apr 30 2019 at 1:14am
There hasn’t been stronger economic growth.
United States GDP Annual Growth Rate
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual
Todd Kreider
Apr 30 2019 at 1:15am
(click “10 year” below the graph to see this.)
Scott Sumner
Apr 30 2019 at 2:28pm
Stronger than w/o the tax cuts. The economy is stronger than before, with a tighter labor market, which draws in migrants.
Todd Kreider
Apr 30 2019 at 3:16pm
Somewhat stronger but not by much in terms of growth 2.9% versus 2.2% from 2014 to 2017. More importantly for illegal immigration, the unemployment rate was 4.2% for almost all of 2017 and 3.9% for 2018, which is hardly any change.
Nick Ronalds
Apr 30 2019 at 5:19pm
Quite agree. The Montenegro comment is shockingly thoughtless coming from a diplomat. The reason we would defend Montenegro goes to the essence of Nato, to maintain the integrity of our alliances hence global stability. Montenegro by itself may not be strategically important, but failure to defend it would signal unwillingness to defend our Nato allies. That would be an invitation to predatory states, who seek and exploit weakness. For example, strong case can be made, and has been, that Iraq invaded Kuwait because the U.S. ambassador signalled that the U.S. would tolerate such aggression. Saddam Hussein took that as a green light.
Comments are closed.