mirror of
https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git
synced 2024-10-01 01:15:38 -04:00
194 lines
10 KiB
HTML
194 lines
10 KiB
HTML
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
||
|
|
<head>
|
||
|
|
<title>nwo-merc</title>
|
||
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../CSSstyle.css"/>
|
||
|
|
<!--Fill in your link line for CSS and JS in the XSLT here! -->
|
||
|
|
</head>
|
||
|
|
<body>
|
||
|
|
<h1 id="title-index">nwo-merc</h1>
|
||
|
|
<div id="conspiracy">
|
||
|
|
<p>A NEW WORLD ORDER: ECONOMIC LIBERALISM OR THE NEW</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>MERCANTILISM?</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>By RICHARD M. EBELING</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In the days immediately following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
|
||
|
|
in August 1990, the Bush Administration declared that a vital
|
||
|
|
interest of the United States was at stake--American economic
|
||
|
|
well-being was threatened by Iraqi control of the Kuwaiti oil
|
||
|
|
fields. However, when a growing number of economists pointed
|
||
|
|
out that the U.S. economy had the capacity to adjust in a
|
||
|
|
reasonable amount of time to any rise in the price of oil--or
|
||
|
|
to a disruption in its supply from the Persian Gulf--the Bush
|
||
|
|
Administration began shifting its rationale for American
|
||
|
|
intervention.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The argument was next made that what was actually at stake was
|
||
|
|
the freedom of the Kuwaiti people. A number of political
|
||
|
|
analysts, however, pointed out that while Saddam Hussein's
|
||
|
|
regime in Iraq was undoubtedly a brutal dictatorship, Kuwait
|
||
|
|
had not exactly been an example of a free, democratic society.
|
||
|
|
In fact, the royal family of Kuwait had closed the Parliament
|
||
|
|
a few years earlier and had also imposed various restrictions
|
||
|
|
on freedom of speech and the press.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The Bush Administration again changed the rationale for
|
||
|
|
American military intervention. It was now claimed that what
|
||
|
|
was at stake was the inviolability of international borders
|
||
|
|
and the continued existence of nation-states. A number of
|
||
|
|
Middle East experts pointed out, however, that these
|
||
|
|
supposedly "inviolable" borders and nation-states were
|
||
|
|
themselves the creations of Britain and France when they
|
||
|
|
carved up the Turkish Empire at the end of world war I. The
|
||
|
|
existing boundaries and the legitimacy of the Persian Gulf
|
||
|
|
states are no less "artificial" than making Kuwait "Province
|
||
|
|
19" of Iraq.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The Bush Administration finally argued that what was at stake
|
||
|
|
was the establishment of a "new world order." World peace and
|
||
|
|
stability could never be secure as long as dictators had the
|
||
|
|
license to conquer and plunder their neighbors by force of
|
||
|
|
arms. With the end of the Cold War, it was now necessary to
|
||
|
|
bring to fruition the noble dreams of Woodrow Wilson and
|
||
|
|
Franklin D. Roosevelt which called for a consort of nations to
|
||
|
|
police and guarantee world order for the mutual benefit of
|
||
|
|
all.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Few people have asked, however, what the ultimate foundations
|
||
|
|
for any durable world order are. And to ask this question is,
|
||
|
|
at the same time, to ask: What are the causes of conflict and
|
||
|
|
war--the causes of world disorder?</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In the 18th century, the reigning economic philosophy among
|
||
|
|
nations was mercantilism. The fundamental premise underlying
|
||
|
|
mercantilism was expressed by Voltaire in 1764: "It is clear
|
||
|
|
that a country cannot gain unless another loses and it cannot
|
||
|
|
prevail without making others miserable." The policy
|
||
|
|
implications of this societal philosophy were trade wars and
|
||
|
|
territorial conquests. If your own nation was to be wealthy,
|
||
|
|
it could only be so by making others poorer. Tariff walls were
|
||
|
|
needed to protect the prosperity of domestic producers from
|
||
|
|
the "attacks" of foreign competitors. Subsidies were required
|
||
|
|
for export producers so that they could "seize" the wealth of
|
||
|
|
others in foreign markets. Resources in foreign lands had to
|
||
|
|
be militarily "captured" to keep them out of the hands of
|
||
|
|
commercial rivals in opposing nation-states who would use them
|
||
|
|
to defeat "our" nation-state.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Economic activity in every nation was entirely politicized.
|
||
|
|
Private interests had to be subordinated to the ends of the
|
||
|
|
state in this global war of all against all.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>But in the 19th century, the liberal ideal replaced
|
||
|
|
mercantilism. The liberal philosophers and economists
|
||
|
|
explained that trade among nations, like trade among
|
||
|
|
individuals, was mutually beneficial. All men would gain
|
||
|
|
through participation in a global division of labor--a way of
|
||
|
|
life in which they offered to each other the various products
|
||
|
|
in the production of which they specialized. Market
|
||
|
|
competition was not conflict, they argued, but rather peaceful
|
||
|
|
cooperation: each producer helped to improve the quality of
|
||
|
|
life for all through the production and sale of superior and
|
||
|
|
less expensive products than the ones offered by his market
|
||
|
|
rivals.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The liberal ideal required minimizing the role of the state in
|
||
|
|
economic affairs. The German economist Wilhelm Ropke once
|
||
|
|
concisely explained that the "genuinely liberal principle"
|
||
|
|
required "the widest possible separation of the two spheres of
|
||
|
|
government and economy. . . . This means the largest possible
|
||
|
|
'depolitisation' of the economic sphere with everything that
|
||
|
|
goes with it. . . . By aid of this principle of separation, it
|
||
|
|
was possible to reduce to a minimum the economic coexistence
|
||
|
|
of sovereign states with their different legal orders, their
|
||
|
|
frontiers, their systems of administration and separate
|
||
|
|
citizenships. . . . The result was that it was now possible to
|
||
|
|
remove the greatest part of the economic issues of conflict
|
||
|
|
and problems to which the coexistence of sovereign States is
|
||
|
|
liable to give rise."</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Competition and rivalry, the "capturing" of consumer business
|
||
|
|
and the "conquest" of market share were now private matters of
|
||
|
|
peaceful exchange and contract. They were no longer affairs of
|
||
|
|
state--no longer political issues concerning obedience,
|
||
|
|
command and control.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The privatization of economic life, with government limited to
|
||
|
|
the protection of life and property and the adjudication of
|
||
|
|
contractual disputes, was the foundation of this "new world
|
||
|
|
order" in the predominantly liberal era between the end of the
|
||
|
|
Napoleonic wars in 1815 and the beginning of the First World
|
||
|
|
War in 1914. And what did it produce? A century of the
|
||
|
|
greatest freedom, prosperity and peace that man has ever
|
||
|
|
known.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In the 20th century, however, we have unfortunately returned
|
||
|
|
to the mercantilist ideal. Trade and commercial rivalry are
|
||
|
|
once again seen as the battleground of political combat.
|
||
|
|
Iraq's motive in invading Kuwait merely took the principle to
|
||
|
|
its logical conclusion: a nation destroys its economic rival
|
||
|
|
by seizing its resources (Kuwait's oil fields) and attempts to
|
||
|
|
enrich itself by plundering its accumulated wealth (Kuwait's
|
||
|
|
gold and physical assets).</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>But the United States and its Desert Storm allies in principle
|
||
|
|
conduct their international economic affairs no differently
|
||
|
|
than has Saddam Hussein. If some of America's Asian trading
|
||
|
|
partners "capture" a large share of the American consumer
|
||
|
|
market, the government responds with a tariff-wall "defense."
|
||
|
|
If American agriculture cannot earn the profits it considers
|
||
|
|
"fair," the U.S. government takes the "offensive" by
|
||
|
|
"attacking" other lands through export price-subsidies. If
|
||
|
|
other nations will not comply with the wishes of the
|
||
|
|
Washington social engineers in some international dispute, the
|
||
|
|
American government influences and persuades them with
|
||
|
|
government-to-government financial loans, grants and
|
||
|
|
subsidized credits--all at American taxpayers' expense, of
|
||
|
|
course.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Nor has the United States government any qualms about military
|
||
|
|
adventures to secure its economic goals when circumstances
|
||
|
|
seem to warrant it. When it becomes politically profitable for
|
||
|
|
the politicians in Washington to oppose the importation of
|
||
|
|
narcotics into the United States, then American military
|
||
|
|
forces invade one of the countries--Panama--that is accused of
|
||
|
|
dealing in the forbidden trade. Or if the occupation of Kuwait
|
||
|
|
by Iraq might negatively influence the availability and price
|
||
|
|
of a valued import such as oil, then a military crusade is
|
||
|
|
launched to guarantee "our" supply of oil. And in the process,
|
||
|
|
we purchase some allies--Egypt--by "forgiving" tens of
|
||
|
|
billions of dollars in government loans; and we also punish
|
||
|
|
others who won't go along with us--Jordan--by withholding
|
||
|
|
government aid and loans.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In a world of politicized trade and commerce, conflicts among
|
||
|
|
nations are inevitable, because the economic profits and
|
||
|
|
losses of private individuals and industries are raised to the
|
||
|
|
level of affairs of state. And, as a consequence, the problems
|
||
|
|
and interests of private suppliers and demanders are turned
|
||
|
|
into issues of national concern and supposed survival. This is
|
||
|
|
the source of much of our global disorder as well as one of
|
||
|
|
the fundamental barriers to a truly peaceful "new world
|
||
|
|
order."</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In 1936, the Swiss economist and political scientist William
|
||
|
|
Rappard delivered a lecture entitled, "The Common Menace of
|
||
|
|
Economic and Military Armaments." World order, he said, was
|
||
|
|
threatened not only by military aggression but by economic
|
||
|
|
warfare as well. The weapons for economic warfare were
|
||
|
|
"economic armaments"--meaning all of the legislative and
|
||
|
|
administrative devices governments use to politically
|
||
|
|
influence imports and exports as well as the allocation of
|
||
|
|
commodities and their prices within one's own country and in
|
||
|
|
other parts of the world.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>"The primary source of economic and military armaments,"
|
||
|
|
Rappard said, "we perceive in the doctrine of political
|
||
|
|
nationalism. Political nationalism is the creed which places
|
||
|
|
the national State at the top of the scale of human values,
|
||
|
|
not only above the individual, but above mankind itself."</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Rappard argued that a new world order of peace and prosperity
|
||
|
|
would only be possible when nations undertook a policy of
|
||
|
|
economic disarmament. But this would only come about when the
|
||
|
|
creed of political nationalism and mercantilism was again
|
||
|
|
superseded by the ideals of economic liberalism. And, alas, we
|
||
|
|
still seem as far away from that transformation as when
|
||
|
|
William Rappard delivered his lecture more than half a century
|
||
|
|
ago.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Professor Ebeling is the Ludwig von Mises Professor of
|
||
|
|
Economics at Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, and also
|
||
|
|
serves as vice-president of academic affairs for The Future of
|
||
|
|
Freedom Foundation.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
From the July 1991 issue of FREEDOM DAILY,
|
||
|
|
Copyright (c) 1991, The Future of Freedom Foundation,
|
||
|
|
PO Box 9752, Denver, Colorado 80209, 303-777-3588.
|
||
|
|
Permission granted to reprint; please give appropriate credit
|
||
|
|
and send one copy of reprinted material to the Foundation.
|
||
|
|
</p>
|
||
|
|
</div>
|
||
|
|
</body>
|
||
|
|
</html>
|