Category: Foreign policy

A company that produces a really attractive product or service and does so efficiently and thus at lower cost than can potential competitors, will grow and potentially dominate and even monopolize that market. It is tempting for such very successful companies to seek laws and regulations that protect their dominance by making it harder for potential competitors to enter those markets with lower costs. But as a company enjoys its increasingly protected monopoly, it tends to lose the edge that put it on top in the first place. Its drive to innovate is reduced. It tends to become lazy and even corrupt in the defense of its monopoly position. While economist differ on what policies are best when dealing with a monopolist, there is generally consensus that monopolies are bad in the long run.

The same is true of countries that grow to international dominance. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting unipolar dominance of the United States, the U.S. increasingly behaves like a bully and disregards the rules of international commerce and diplomacy that it helped establish and demands that others follow.

The United States was founded on an extremely well-conceived set of principles designed to protect its individual citizens to lead their own lives and pursue their own flourishing as they each saw fit. The American constitution limited what the government may do to enumerated powers and provided checks and balances on the actions of each branch of government. For the most part these restrictions have held, and our government has provided the defense, protection, and framework needed for our individual flourishing.

But as we gained strength and dominance and especial during our brief period of unipolarity, we increasingly violated the rules we demanded that others follow. For example, we joined others to sponsor the World Trade Organization to establish the rules of fair trade in order to maximize the benefits of higher incomes for everyone made possible by trade.  We properly challenged China for dumping its excess steel on the market as a violation of WTO rules. But President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian, European, as well as Chinese steel in the name of national defense violated WTO rules as well as common sense. And how do President Biden’s multibillion dollar subsidies for domestic semiconductor chip production differ from “China’s state-led, non-market approach to the economy and trade” we object to?

Though the U.S. won most of the cases it brought to the WTO Appellate Body, the WTO’s dispute resolution body, that Body has not been able to function since December 2019 because the US has blocked the appoint of new judges.

But it gets worse. We have rightly condemned Russia for violating the sovereignty of Ukraine by invading it, while overlooking our equally illegal violations or attempted violations of the sovereignty of Cuba, Iraq, and Libya among others.  

But it gets worse still. In reaction to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s accusation that the government of India was responsible for the assassination of Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil, Adrienne Watson, the White House National Security Council spokesperson, said “targeting dissidents in other countries is absolutely unacceptable and we will keep taking steps to push back on this practice.” Had she forgotten the dozens of such assassinations carried out by the U.S. on foreign soil? Of the more recent was the drone attack in Yemen that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and his young grandson on September 30, 2011. Al-Awlaki was an Islamic scholar and lecturing living here in Arlington Va.  Our assassination of Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3, 2020, again with a drone attack, raised considerable international criticism. Soleimani was the Commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. We were not at war with either Iran or (at that time) Iraq.

With our near monopoly of political power in the world, the ability of our defense industry to protect and promote its profitable supply of weapons is strong. We can be thankful of their capacity to produce the weapons that defend us. But our military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of profits however and by whom ever its products are used. Its profits are strengthened and sustained by our forever wars and those we supply. Ike knew of what he spoke.

Of the 2023 FY budget (ending next week) of $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending (yes trillions if you can swallow that), $860 billion (or 50.6%) was for defense. Half of that was paid to the defense industry. Most of that is for weapons. But they provide other services as well. When I was living in Baghdad as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004, Halliburton (the company Dick Chaney had been Chairman and CEO of) provided our meals in the Embassy mess hall (Saddam Hussein’s Presidential Palace). Lockheed alone gets more of its annual revenue from the federal government than the annual GDP of all but the top 81 countries (about half) in the world.

While our constitution’s checks and balances go a long way to protect our government from capture by the defense and other industries, the honestly of our elected representatives (devotion to the interests of their constituents and our country rather than to the size of their corporate contributions) still matters. It is hard to understand otherwise why we send our sons and daughters off to fight and die in foreign lands or encourage Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian.

Our government and foreign policy have been corrupted by our unipolar dominance. But our very arrogance—abide by our rules while we do what we want—has and will increasingly weaken our global influence. There are faint signs that we are being to recognize this new reality and tempering our behavior. The demise of our monopoly behavior and our return to fair and proper competition should be encouraged.

It makes sense to restrict trade of important military products. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was right to claim that we should aim for a “small yard with a high fence” to protect military supplies while otherwise maximizing beneficial trade. But the profit motive of our defense industries to expand the size of that yard as much as possible is strong and has been and will be hard to resist.