This is Part 3 of my 3-Part series on geopolitics.

You really need to read Part 1 and Part 2 before ploughing into this article.

5 Ways To Maximise Peace In The World is Part 1. There, I gave you a menu of options for handling international politics. If you haven’t read it yet, go back and read it now.

Then in Beware! This Article Channels The Ghosts of Locke, JSM, Friedman and Other Pugnacious Thinkers, we’ve double-checked the leading thinkers of our classical liberal-libertarian movement. I even chipped in with my opinion and asked for yours. Again, read it if you haven’t yet.

Now, in this third and final part of the series on geopolitics, 3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping Into International Politics, I’m going to eviscerate some of the more stupid ideas coming out of the commentariat. Then I’m going to tell you what positions any sensible thinking classical liberal or libertarian should have when it comes to international relations. Then a call to action.

Australian libertarians need to be outwardly-focused, alliance-building policy advocates, and dedicated to early warning defence systems and a deterrent with punch.

Ready? Let’s do it!

Just to prove how centrist classical liberals and libertarians are, and how off-the-charts the Guardian is when it calls us ‘far right’, here are 3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping Into International Politics, all which fall outside the Overton Window as far as I’m concerned:

WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #1: NAÏVE, PEACEKEEPER, WHITE FLAG DEFENCE
There are at least 11 senators in the Australian Parliament who, for whatever reason, believe non-aggression means we wait until a foreign-invader’s amphibious craft land on our beaches before we protect ourselves. They are called the Australian Greens. If they had their way, the Australian Defence Force would be relegated to fractional peacekeeper capacity. I have heard some in the freedom-movement, usually young and unschooled in the realities of a harsh world, a tiny group, who share this view. They don’t understand statecraft and chokepoint strategy.

The threat to Australia isn’t from a landing on Bondi Beach. It’s the South China Sea shipping lanes through which passes critical fuel from South Korea on the way to our last two government-subsidised refineries in Brisbane and Geelong. A blockade for 53 days would deplete fuel reserves, preventing trucks from replenishing supermarket shelves. Imagine 25 million starving people in 53 days!

And Australia has other chokepoints which could be squeezed from afar by a foreign actor.

And in this regard, we depart from our US libertarian friends with isolationist tendencies, the ‘no foreign entanglements’ brigade. This might be arguable from the bosom of a 330 million populated, 5422 nuclear warheaded nation. For nuclear-free Australia with a 25 million population strewn across the same continental land mass, it just doesn’t fly. Australian libertarians need to be outwardly-focused, alliance-building policy advocates, and dedicated to early warning defence systems and a deterrent with punch. 

WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #2: ANTI UN RHETORIC
Can we just stop with the Ricardo Bosi conspiracy theories? Enough. The United Nations is absolutely worth keeping. In fact, it’s a great innovation of the liberal movement of which libertarians are front and centre. We just need to update its software. Classical liberals and libertarians are supporters of cooperative arrangements between nations whether free trade or to prevent of war. Stop with the nutjob UN bashing and start talking UN reform It is a voluntary organisation, not an Orwellian world government.

WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #3: AN ACTUAL WORLD GOVERNMENT
This is the biggest of the wacky crazy ideas. Can you imagine the horror of a ‘world president’, world laws, world surveillance, no reprieve from the totality of it all? We have enough of a problem with nation states. As I’ve said, the Structural Realist Theory sacrifices freedom for the security of a global Big Brother. Mad!

A blockade for 53 days would deplete fuel reserves, preventing trucks from replenishing supermarket shelves. Imagine 25 million starving people in 53 days!

A FOREIGN POLICY ON WHICH LIBERTARIANS SHOULD AGREE
Australian libertarians ought to advocate the following positions on international relations:

  • A strong, technologically-advanced Australian Defence Force. Defence is a legitimate role of government. Let’s do it properly, building a domestically-located defence manufacturing capacity delivered by the private sector, space industry included;
  • Formally-negotiated and robust multi-lateral defence alliances including with Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand, PNG, the Pacific Islands and of course the United States, the United Kingdom and the Anglosphere countries. Make clear that alliances will not be granted with countries which permit strategic advantage to apparent foes;
  • Instant free-trade agreements with those who become our formal allies;
  • The creation of a Preferential Alliance Citizenship. If a citizen of any of our formal allies wishes to migrate to Australia and has the skills we value, he is given preference. Let’s create a more cohesive cultural and economic region of strategic importance; 
  • Zero foreign aid to any country apart from our formal allies, if that be strategically advantageous;
  • Trade with our apparent foes, but no Preferential Alliance Citizenship;
  • A fresh look at the UN Security Council admission criteria.

THE UNLIKELHOOD AND PRECIOUSNESS OF FREEDOM
There are 195 countries in the world. Freedom House says 17 of these are true democracies, Australia being one of them. Corruption, tyranny and authoritarianism are the norm, not freedom. We need every possible strategy at our disposal to maintain our precious legacy and to hand it to our children.

Classical liberals and libertarians must continue to operate in the context of the world as it is. We must have our wits about us. We must cooperate and engage and project ourselves as a free people. We must negotiate and trade around the world for mutual benefit, lifting people out of poverty as we do it. We must find the common ground of our humanity. We must continue to show the greater part of ourselves and inspire those with whom we come into contact. We built this modern world. We continue to unlock human potential and flourishing. We must be open to those who value our freedom. We must also deter and resist those who don’t. We must neither aggress nor harm, but we also must not withdraw into the timid shadows of fear at yet another foe, for we have seen so many of them off. 

If not entrepreneurial, nation-building classical liberals, if not liberty-loving, deep-thinking libertarians alert to coercion wherever it may lurk, who?

2 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks Kenelm,

    Your foreign policy ideas for this country sound very reasonable but I must differ with you on the possibility of reforming the UN.

    I do not support Ricardo Bosi’s radical positions (although I defend his right to express them) but he is not alone in questioning the utility of the UN. When it comes to this body, I would like to hear how you believe reform is possible?

    IMO, this organisation has become a corrupt burden on nation states, captured by individuals who are driven by arrogant self-interest including financial gain & power. They are obsessed with “climate change” indicative by their support for SDG’s & would see the collapse of countries to meet these fantasy objectives. They even link human rights to this “climate emergency” narrative.

    Yet where were they when human rights were being trampled during the COVID scare campaign? They supported discrimination, segregation & isolationist policies as well as rejecting the right to bodily autonomy that impacted millions in the most widespread mass formation event in human history.

    For me & many others, the COVID Plandemic revealed how fragile freedoms truly are & how powerful interests will do whatever it takes to control the population.

    Unfortunately the UN concept may sound good in theory & the original intention may have been noble, but what happens when this body, completely removed from reality, forcefully pushes an agenda, backed by wealthy elites that is ultimately destructive to humankind?

    I believe it is ultimately totalitarian in nature & the checks & balances simply aren’t strong enough to resist the anti- western, anti-freedom, anti-women & anti-Semitic agenda currently being implemented.

    So, how can it be reformed or is it simply past its use-by-date?

    Regards,

    Jill

    • Jill,

      Thank you for contributing your thoughts, affirming most of my ideas here and, particularly, for keeping me on my toes in relation to the United Nations. As always, I welcome subscriber input and am honoured.

      Let me quote you and address your points:

      “Unfortunately the UN concept may sound good in theory & the original intention may have been noble, but what happens when this body, completely removed from reality, forcefully pushes an agenda, backed by wealthy elites that is ultimately destructive to humankind?”

      If you go back to Part 1 of my 3-Part series, https://libertyitch.com/2023/11/28/5-ways-to-maximise-peace-in-the-world/, you are challenging the effectiveness of LIBERAL APPROACH #3: LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL THEORY, especially the effectiveness of the United Nations.

      Fair enough.

      Let me first encourage and affirm your, even cautious, agreement with me that the UN is a noble project. Let’s also agree that assembling all the worlds nations voluntarily to try and cooperate for peace and prosperity is no mean feat. It’s a testament to our classical liberal values that we can even orchestrate cooperation on that scale.

      Could I at least secure your tentative agreement to that?

      Remember, this is a 3-Part series on geopolitics. We are a country with only 25 million people, 16 million of whom are concentrated into five sizeable metropolitan areas and strewn over an entire continental land mass. Cooperative, voluntary relationships with other nations are vital for our security.

      The word ‘voluntarily’ is important.

      I struggle as an unworldly fig farmer to understand global affairs. I’m racking my brain to remember when the United Nations last forced anything. In fact, isn’t it one of the criticisms it attracts, that it has no bite and doesn’t act when needed. In frustration, UN critics often say “let’s leave the UN”. One can only leave an organisation which is voluntary.

      So there’s no force.

      I don’t know what you mean that the UN is ‘unrealistic’. Could you elaborate? In between pruning my fig trees, I have managed to listen to a UN General Assembly debate or two. They sound very realistic to me: realpolitik, warts and all.

      As for backing by ‘wealthy elites’ and ‘captured by individuals’, I’m not personally part of these circles and alarmed by this news. I’d be grateful if you could let me know who they are. I wouldn’t expect you to name all of them. But I’d be grateful if you could share who the top 10 are. Who are the top 10 wealthy elites who have captured the United Nations?

      My understanding is, and again I could be wrong, that the UN is funded by nation states, that the US is by far the largest donor, and that non-state funding is prohibited under its Charter. I’m guided here by a conversation I had with a friend who happened to be the UN’s General Counsel.

      You then conclude with:

      “I believe it is ultimately totalitarian in nature & the checks & balances simply aren’t strong enough to resist the anti- western, anti-freedom, anti-women & anti-Semitic agenda currently being implemented.”

      Yes, I certainly agree that if the UN were binding on us or if the UN sent its blue-berets to unilaterally invade our shores, it would be totalitarian. However, I think we can agree that this isn’t happening.

      Again the UN is a voluntary assembly of all the nations of the world to discuss and try to resolve security competition. As I said, there are 195 countries in the world. Freedom House says only 17 are truly free, Australian being one of them. The other 178 are less free than us. If the UN reflects the worrying streams of thought you mention, and I don’t doubt your astute factual observations on this for a second, then all the more important we engage, understand, trade and negotiate with them.

      And here’s the glimmer of hope for us all. Despite 178 countries being less free than Australia, we’ve managed to gain their cooperation to join the project voluntarily, this initiative of the liberal West. Close to home, an Australian-led UN peacekeeper force shepherded Timor-Leste into sovereignty. Yes, UN member Indonesia agreed to this. And, most stunning of all, Indonesia cooperated with neighbouring Australia which led that UN peacekeeping operation.

      Prior to 1945 when the United Nations was formed, name three examples in which a stunning geopolitical solution like that was achieved.

      I have never said the United Nations is perfect or that we should rely on LIBERAL APPROACH #3: LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL THEORY exclusively.

      My sense of things are that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Jill, thanks for your ongoing contributions here to debate and ideas. They speak to your fine mind and I’m honoured you’re here with us in the fight for freedom.

      Kenelm

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here