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?

This is Part 2 of my 3-Part series on geopolitics.

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, you’re missing an important point. Read that first.

WHERE WE’RE UP TO

I’ve taken you inside the minds of the world’s leading geopolitical advisors, where I cover the five approaches to foreign affairs that policymakers use to make sense of the world. If you’re a true libertarian and classical liberal, you’ll love three but find one alarming.

As explained in Part 1, they are:

• The Democratic Peace Theory
• The Economic Interdependence Theory 
• The Liberal Institutional Theory
• The Human Nature Realist Theory
• The Structural Realist Theory.

THE GHOSTS OF PHILOSOPHERS PAST
Let’s check in with the ghosts of classical liberal and libertarian philosophers past:

Locke says man has natural rights of life, liberty and property, and that these can be better protected by forming a government under a social contract. This idea of free people cooperating for mutual benefit is consistent with the Economic Interdependence Theory and the Democratic Peace Theory. 

In “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”, John Stuart Mill advocated for international cooperation and diplomacy as a means to prevent conflicts. He stressed the importance of peaceful resolution to disputes between nations and the establishment of international norms to govern relations between states. This sounds like the Liberal Institutional Theory.

You could almost say that Adam Smith was the founding philosopher of the Economic Interdependence Theory. In “Wealth of Nations”, he suggested each nation state has a certain comparative economic advantage and that, not only would they become more prosperous by specialising in that advantage, but interdependence between nations would proliferate. The idea was that nations with economic ties have a vested interest in each other’s well-being, making peace more likely.

Britain had extensive economic interdependence with India, Canada, Australia, the United States and, yes, Germany. Yet, conflict between Germany and Britain occurred. 

In “Economic Harmonies”, Frederic Bastiat suggested free markets and voluntary exchange create a natural harmony of interests among individuals and nations, creating the conditions under which they are less likely to enter into conflict. Again, this is support for the Economic Interdependence Theory, one purpose of which is to maximise peace and prosperity.

If you look closely at the later philosophers, Hayek was against central planning and authority so would have been horrified by the Structural Realist Theory. Like John Stuart Mill, Rothbard was anti-imperialist and would have been very cautious about the Human Nature Realist Theory because it relies on coercive foreign intervention.

Friedman too famously supported free-trade and the ideas behind the Economic Interdependence Theory.

MY OPINION
For my part, I think no single approach is foolproof. I’ll take each in turn.

There are case studies which show the Democratic Peace Theory doesn’t always work. For instance, the United Kingdom and Argentina were at war over the Falkland Islands in 1982. Both India and Pakistan are democratic but have clashed repeatedly, with open conflict in 1999. In 1974, Greece and Turkey were fighting over Cyprus. Both those countries were liberal democracies. 

But wars between liberal democracies are rare. It’s therefore a worthwhile pro-peace strategy that more liberal democracies exist.

When it comes to the Economic Interdependence Theory, again it doesn’t always work. Just prior to World War I, Germany had deep trading ties with France, Belgium, Austria-Hungary and, yes, the Great Britain. Britain had extensive economic interdependence with India, Canada, Australia, the United States and, yes, Germany. Yet, conflict between Germany and Britain occurred. 

But wars between economically interdependent nations are less likely. So, this too is a worthwhile strategy to adopt for maximising peace.

When it comes to the Liberal Institutional Theory, I’m unashamedly in the camp of international cooperation. If you sense a “but” coming, I can’t help you.

nations with economic ties have a vested interest in each other’s well-being, making peace more likely.

However, a friend of mine was a general counsel of the United Nations. Among his duties was the writing of official minutes at UN Security Council meetings. He has a lot of insight into the effectiveness of the United Nations and is pessimistic. 

A relative of mine helped found the United Nations in 1945. It was a noble endeavour, has served us well on occasion, but it is time it was overhauled. This idea that the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France are forever permanent members of the Security Council was a built-in flaw. 

What we need is a United Nations 2.0 and I’ll share some ideas with you in a future article. As for the Human Nature Realist Theory, I am cautious on this. I believe libertarians should have no problem with a balance of power approach, but the moment foreign interference occurs we must be on alert. I concede many will regard this as naïve. My response is that much damage has been caused by intervening in the affairs of others.

Finally, what do I think about the Structural Realist Theory. As a diehard classical liberal, I’m having an allergic reaction. The phrase ‘binding world government’ is a huge red flag for me. Nothing could sound more tyrannical or authoritarian. I therefore cannot agree with John Mearsheimer’s position. Inevitably, he discards freedom for security. Not for me.

YOUR COMMENTS
As a classical liberal or libertarian, do you share my instinct that we need multiple approaches?

Do you agree that philosopher after philosopher reinforces the validity of the Economic Interdependence Theory, and do you agree with Adam Smith here?

And do you agree that the Human Nature Realist Theory is a slippery-slope and that the Structural Realist Theory is no-go territory?

Share your responses in the comments section below.

So, we’ve covered all the mainstream political strategies for handling international relations in 5 Ways To Maximise Peace In The World.

And in Beware! This Article Channels The Ghosts of Locke, JSM, Friedman and Other Pugnacious Thinkers, this article, we’ve double-checked the leading thinkers of our classical liberal-libertarian movement.

In the third and final part in this series on geopolitics, 3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping Into International Politics, I’m going to bang on the head some of the most unsupportable thoughts coming out of the commentariat. 

Welcome to Part 1 of my 3-Part series on geopolitics.

If you haven’t listened to the Lex Fridman podcast, do.

Its long-form interviews with notable guests are fantastic, covering topics ranging from the nature of God to developments in bioengineering, from the essence of motivation to world politics.

In Episode #401, Lex interviews University of Chicago international relations scholar, John Mearsheimer. 

Mutually beneficial trade between nations creates a reciprocal reliance which neither would wish to disrupt. Thus, peace is maximised.

Mearsheimer is a controversial figure in the world of international strategy. He is viewed with suspicion among the Washington power elite for his position that the United States itself caused the Russia-Ukraine war by pushing for Ukraine’s admission into NATO, thus creating an aggressive, common border with Russia.

The hawks hate this interpretation!

But I’d never heard John Mearsheimer speak himself, so I listened to the podcast and was transfixed.

International politics is really about keeping the peace; he described five main strategies for achieving that.

Three are liberal approaches.

LIBERAL APPROACH #1: DEMOCRATIC PEACE THEORY
This is the idea that democracies are relatively transparent and that competing democracies can see the geopolitical intentions of the other. This instils trust and is reinforced by pro-liberty values. Thus, peace is maximised.

LIBERAL APPROACH #2: ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY
This approach says that mutually beneficial trade between nations creates a reciprocal reliance which neither would wish to disrupt. Thus, peace is maximised.

LIBERAL APPROACH #3: LIBERAL INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
Here, the theory says that if we create voluntary, cooperative international bodies, nation states can participate in decisions affecting them and build practical relationships with their counterparts for mutual benefit. Bodies like the United Nations and UNICEF, so peace is maximised. 

Running like a thread through these approaches to keeping the peace is that the nation state retains its autonomy, while prosperity is the goal to which to strive.

Competing democracies can see the geopolitical intentions of the other. This instils trust and is reinforced by pro-liberty values. Thus, peace is maximised.

After the liberal approaches, there are two realist schools of thought:

 REALIST APPROACH #1: HUMAN NATURE REALIST THEORY
This school of thought is sometimes also called Defensive Realism. The idea is that, in order for peace to be maximised, a geopolitical balance of power must be maintained. It could mean some countries will maintain their strength and play the role of world policeman. Think America. And other countries could be denied advancing their geopolitical strength because it would tip the balance. Think Iran securing nuclear weapons. Also think of the example of America and the Soviet Union and their mutually assured destructive nuclear arsenal. If the balance between superpowers is maintained, so the argument goes, peace is maximised.

REALIST APPROACH #2: STRUCTURAL REALIST THEORY
This approach is also called the Offensive Realist Theory. It looks at the world as a competition for security. It starts with Hobbes who said that, in the state of nature, man has to confront anarchy. Here, don’t think of anarchy as a free-for-all riot. Anarchy here is the opposite of hierarchy. Hobbes’ solution in the Leviathan is the nation state. Man gains his security over nature by forming a government. The Structural Realist Theory then suggests this simply moves the competition from individuals to the nation state. To eliminate war, which is the ultimate competition for security, the Theory says we need a world government with binding rules, to which all nation states are forced to comply. This removes competition for security, and thus war.

This is John Mearsheimer’s position, and you can see now hints at why he is controversial.

The two Realist schools are pragmatic and have a strong emphasis on multinational enforcement and have a built-in tendency to authority.

As a classical liberal or libertarian, which of these appeals? Which ones don’t you like?

Let me know in the comments section below.

Next up, let’s find out what the great classical liberal and libertarian leading minds said about this subject. You’ll be able to compare your responses to theirs. 

It’s all in Part 2 of this 3-part series on geopolitics: Beware! This Article Channels The Ghosts of Locke, JSM, Friedman and Other Pugnacious Thinkers.