Getaway Part Two

Here we go again. My last post definitely had a mixed reception. Two of you were kind enough to leave comments on the site. Thank you! You were most kind. Perhaps you were too kind. Three others told me what they thought about it without leaving comments. One thought it was too harsh, one did not believe that I wrote it, and the last one liked it and agreed with most of it. I really appreciate the feedback.


I think that some people got the impression that I was only talking about China with my last post. That is not entirely accurate. I was merely using China as an example. I could have easily chosen North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or any of a dozen more! I believe that linkage should be applied to every nation we deal with. Luckily, a lot of countries qualify as free. Therefore, we get along well with them and our policies would be unlikely to change toward them. Amazingly, even France qualifies! Unfortunately, there are a lot that do not. Those would probably not like the policy. Well, I am sure their citizens don’t like living in fear either. I also want to make sure to clarify that I am not against importing products, or having domestic companies build foreign plants as long as the nations we are dealing with are free!

Another thing I neglected to mention in the last post is the effect linkage would have on national security. Sharansky claimed it would be beneficial in the long run. I must say that I agree with him. After all, how often do free democratic countries go to war against each other? How often do they sponsor terrorism against each other? Not terribly often. In a free country with an elected government, the leadership has an interest to improve the lot of their citizens. The focus is internal. They try to keep the people happy so they will remain in power. In a totalitarian fear society, the leadership has an interest in keeping an external enemy. It helps to rally the people. They chafe less under their yoke if they think that they need the strong man dictator to protect them from and external threat. What would the short term effect of a linkage policy have on security? I think it depends on how it is implemented, and on the rather questionable mental stability of a few of the worst of the world’s dictators. Foreign aid should definitely be linked. Trade policy should as well. Military intervention would, I think, be used in extremely rare cases where the subject is actively waging war either with uniformed troops or sponsored terrorists.

For linkage policy to bring about rapid results, there would have to be a degree of international cooperation among free nations. Of course, that leaves out the UN. The UN is broken beyond repair. I doubt that there is any way it could be reformed into an effective body. When an organization places Libya in charge of human rights and Iraq in charge of WMD proliferation or that names Israel as the worlds worst abuser of human rights, one has to question whether or not they are living in reality. Unfortunately, the UN is living in reality. The reality is that the UN is populated by moral relativists and totalitarians. By giving legitimacy and votes to totalitarian, fear based, regimes the UN has made it impossible for it to stand up for freedom. The problem is only compounded when so many representatives of free societies there refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between the targeted killing of illegal combatants (terrorists) and the intentional slaughter of masses of civilians. Appointing an ambassador with clarity is a good thing, but I think that ultimately the US should withdraw from the UN completely rather than lend legitimacy to its warped world view. Besides, I am sure they could find a location for the headquarters that fits better with their current goals. Perhaps Havana?

In addition to linking foreign policy to the principles of freedom, the United States should seek out other free nations to partner with and encourage freedom. Whether an organization would be necessary or if individual agreements would be sufficient, would have to be addressed. With the poor track record of the UN, I can’t help but think that it would be better to avoid creating another international bureaucracy.


Once again, I invite any and all to comment. If you do not agree, you do not have to feel that your comments are not welcome.