Many libertarians have shown exultation in the early moves to slash federal bureaucracy taken by the Trump administration. His first proposed budget takes a knife to numerous agencies (like the EPA) that have long been thorns in the side of free marketers. For those who get bent out of shape by our government sending aid money overseas, Trump’s plan to slash the budget of USAID was also a welcome treat.
Yet, libertarians should be wary before they align with this budget. Not only are most of the cuts going to be replaced by increased spending on defense, but they’re cuts that are going to make America, and the world, less safe. One example of this is the cuts to the State Departments budget.
Libertarians’ diplomatic blind spot
Professional diplomacy is one of those functions of government that libertarians too often choose to ignore.
When you hear a libertarian list off the functions of a state (when they believe in a state at all), they virtually always mention frontline services like police and fire departments, as well as a functional legal system.
Defense of the country is also almost universally mentioned – and when they say defense they mean defense, not a military to be sent on foreign adventures.
Yet, rarely is there mention of diplomacy or the other tools of peaceful foreign interaction. This is unfortunate, as it frequently leaves a blind-spot in the way libertarians see the world.
A professional foreign service is as important as a military in maintaining peace and preventing war. By having trained mediators and negotiators operating around the world, we not only know more about potential dangers, but we also have the opportunity to prevent those dangers from ever needing a military response. The raison d’être of country’s foreign affairs apparatus is to manage international relations and prevent conflict. That makes it one of the most libertarian of government bodies, working to maintain peace and stability.
Many libertarians, myself included, will say that there is plenty of room to trim the fat at almost every federal agency, State included. However, we should be very wary of the proposal to cut more than 30% of the US State Department budget while the Department of Defense is set to be inundated with fresh appropriations.
The subordination of State
When a presidential administration feeds its defense department at the expense of its foreign affairs department, it does three things.
First, it diminishes in real terms the ability of the foreign affairs department to conduct its necessary diplomatic actions (actions backed up by extensive on-the-ground research and analysis) and prevent disagreements from escalating into outright conflicts.
Second, it sends a negative message both within government agencies and to countries around the world.
This is especially true for the United States, which is the linchpin of the both the global defense and institutional architectures. The message is clear: diplomacy and soft power is becoming subordinate to hard power. This can make negotiations tenser, and provoke similar responses by regional players.
The world has already witnessed the return of naked force in places like Ukraine, where Russia has subverted international norms to destabilize a sovereign state. Trump’s decision to diminish State means he’s reduced the perception that peaceful resolutions of such conflicts are possible.
The third thing that happens is caused by the changing power balance within the government. When the defense department is getting supercharged with additional funding, its leaders are going to have expanded influence within the cabinet. When that happens in tandem with a cut to the foreign affairs department, that growth in influence is magnified. The Trump administration’s actions are serving to significantly increase the power of his Defense department, while reducing the status and influence of State. That can have profoundly negative consequences on long-term policy-making.
When you have a hammer…
None of this is to say that the defense department is not important. Indeed, it is the underpinning of national security. In many cases, soft power is far from sufficient.
Diplomacy only works when it is backed up with strength – the example of Russia and Ukraine serves again as a fitting reminder of that. The leaders of the European Union were so certain that the need for military muscle was no longer necessary to back up their moves that they spent years cutting their defense budgets. They learned the hard way that without the big stick, words of any volume mean little.
Yet the naked threat of force is not enough. It is a crude instrument, one that can lead to spiraling escalation. Diplomats and professional foreign services are the crucial, softer supplement to a defense strategy. Neglecting it can be almost as bad as neglecting defense.
Expanding defense spending and increasing the clout of the Department of Defense in international affairs opens up further risks, because it places more power into the hands of an organization that is designed to think in terms of conflict.
When that organizational mindset is what dominates the conduct of international affairs, it increases the allure of force as a tool; whether that is force threatened, or acted upon.
Anyone who values peaceful and free interactions for individuals should understand the value of prioritizing a foreign policy that favors diplomacy over naked force.
It may be said (by defenders of Trump’s moves) that the increase in the power of the Department of Defense is not a problem because the department leadership is sober-minded and philosophical. This is certainly true of Secretary James Mattis, who has a well-earned reputation for mindfulness and resistance to unnecessary use of American military might.
Unfortunately, these apologists miss the point however. The organizational structures, cultures, and expertise of these two major institutions of foreign policy are very different. They demand different skill-sets, and both are needed to confront a more dangerous world. Steep cuts to the State Department will mean the loss of institutional knowledge, experience, and expertise that will (most likely) be sorely missed.
America’s libertarians should spare a thought for their embattled diplomats.
John Engle
Latest posts by John Engle (see all)
- Libertarians Should Be Wary of Tax Reform – The Right Engle - January 15, 2018
- The Hate for GMO – The Right Engle - December 11, 2017
- Should We Bring Back the State Militias? – The Right Engle - November 27, 2017
If only we had a State Department that wasn’t simply the velvet covered fist of the Military Industrial Complex. For the last couple of decades (at least) that I’ve been paying attention our State Departments has actively advocated pulling us into more and more fights, not less. Take a look at Hillary’s Baby “Libya”. Take a look at Syria. Take a look at all the negotiations the State Department did to create a “coalition” to attack Iraq.
No, in this case the State Department, in fact “All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.” (Zhou Enlai, Saturday Evening Post (27 March 1954); this is a play upon the famous maxim of Clausewitz: “War is the continuation of politics by other means”.)
I’ve seen very little from our State Department other than Saber Rattling, threats, and Manipulations at every possible level for so long that I doubt they can do anything else at this point.
Comments are closed.