Why did you write this book?
Ever since I was very young, I have always liked to come up with new ideas for things. When I was a teenager, I started to become interested in political systems and began developing the idea for this book. By the time I graduated from high school, I already had the general outline. I took a break from working on this book for nearly 10 years. During that time I did many things including getting both my undergraduate and graduate degrees, serving for several years in the U.S. military, starting several business ventures, and working in a variety of occupations.
In the summer of 2018, I went back and completed this book. Following this, I began to hire a large team of people to help develop it, including editors, illustrators, translators, and designers. At this point, the book has been translated into most of the world’s languages. The European languages will be available during the first half of 2020, and the Middle Eastern and Asian languages will be released during the final part of 2020. Overall, almost 100 people have helped.
Ultimately, I wanted to write this book because I wanted to get ordinary people thinking about international matters, and hopefully restore balance in the international system.
What is your background in foreign policy? Why should we listen to what you have to say?
The main reason why people should listen to these ideas is because they are an innovative approach to foreign policy that are backed by historically sound examples. It is not just a theory, but rather a system based upon facts. Ultimately, these ideas seek to restore a sense of balance in international relations, which in its current state is out out balance.
People should listen to me because I am not part of the "system,” meaning that I do not stand to benefit from these ideas in one way or another. Since I do not work in the field of international relations, I do not need to worry about offending the people who hold power within this system. I am not backed by an organization or a wealthy individual. I manage a small, under-the-radar company that develops and publishes these ideas. This gives me a lot of freedom to do and say what I want without having to go through a gatekeeper.
Explain the book’s title: Isolation Moderation
The title, ‘Isolation Moderation’ simply refers to a foreign policy system of moderate isolationism. It all goes back to the idea of balance. It is an isolationist system, but carried out in moderation, not too much or too little.
Who should read this book?
This book was written for anyone to read, which is why I wrote it in the simplest language possible and provided a glossary of key terms. For the most part, anyone who is interested in politics should read this book. However, the book may be slightly more appealing to political science students or conservative thinkers, including libertarians.
The second part of this book, which will be released in 2021 will cover domestic policy and be much more liberal in terms of its ideas. I am sure that this part will be more appealing to liberal-minded people. I already have several high-quality people helping to develop the book. A number of them have worked in both the U.S. Congress and the White House with top leaders in the nation developing policy.
What is your goal with this book?
The main goal that I have with this book is to provide value to people by providing them with an interesting read and new ideas to reflect upon. I also believe that many of these ideas will help to restore a sense of balance within the international system, which is something that the world greatly needs.
What is the most controversial idea in the book, according to a liberal?
There may be several ideas in this book that liberals may not agree with. These can include the areas covering closed borders and immigration restrictions, along with maintaining a strong military. However, there are some ideas in this book that liberals probably will agree with, including the Foreign Charity Service and the focus upon equality.
What is the most controversial, according to a conservative?
Ultimately, it will come down to what kind of a conservative they are. For example, neoconservatives will likely disagree with a non-interventional military. There may also be some paleo-conservatives that do not think that these ideas go far enough, particularly when it comes to immigration matters or foreign aid.
What is the most important takeaway for each side (liberal, conservative)?
I think that the greatest takeaway for both liberals and conservatives is that this book will provide a new perspective for them to consider when it comes to international relations, and maybe even challenge some of their currently held views. My hope is that readers of this book will come away more informed about these matters than they were before, even if they do not agree with everything.
Do you consider yourself to be conservative, liberal, or something else? Do you support a particular political party?
At this time, I do not affiliate with a particular political party. I would consider my self to be independent in this regard. Regarding ideology, I have a mix of both liberal and conservative views, depending on the topic. Overall, I would probably consider myself a moderate, which is why I have never firmly associated with a specific political party.
What would you say to people that think some of your ideas may be too idealistic?
There will always be people who think that new ideas are too idealistic or too complicated to be put into action. The same thing was probably said when Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations,” or when Karl Marx wrote “The Communist Manifesto.” However, it is important to understand that all the great ideas that came into the world were once considered too idealistic or unattainable by some. There are two types of people in the world: those who follow the system and those that work to change the system. If one does not seek to change the system, then they will have no other choice but to live under the system that others have created for them. All of these changes start from a new idea.
Also, the framework of this book focuses on five main areas that any nation can follow for prosperity in today’s world. They are simple enough that they can work in every type of culture and government system, while also flexible enough where they can be implemented in the best way possible.
Who is your “favorite” political leader?
I would have to say that my favorite political leader is George Washington, the first U.S. president. Many of the ideas found in this book can be traced back to his own views. This is especially true when it comes to neutrality in both foreign policy and military affairs.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>Armed Neutrality in Isolation Moderation
Armed neutrality has largely been viewed as an independent concept before officially becoming an important component of the philosophy of Isolation Moderation. In principle, it can fit within several political theories throughout history, but not as concretely as it does with Isolation Moderation. Nations need to prosper without spending excessive efforts looking outward. They need to get their own house in order instead of getting themselves involved with the affairs of others. Isolation Moderation believes that while we all should be focusing internally, we cannot always ensure that others are doing the same. There will always be rogue elements and nations that will make up ‘casus belli’ (a justification for war) and violate other nations and their sovereignty. There is no global police force or central authority to enforce right and wrong among states. Every country is on its own in this regard. This is why armed neutrality is very important for all states to pursue.
Sovereign states need to have a strong military so that they can preserve their autonomy and way of life from aggressive nations. Powerful and well-armed states are mostly left unbothered. Even on an individual level, we see many self-defense training courses that train people in the art of protecting themselves. Nations do the same thing by maintaining a strong military and learning modern methods of warfare and self-defense. Armed neutrality means that a nation is well-armed and capable of protecting its interests and citizens while being neutral and peaceful at the same time.
Isolation Moderation, Armed Neutrality, and the Utopian Ideal
On the surface, Isolation Moderation is made up of many incredible ideas and solutions, that it almost feels like a utopian ideal. This philosophy, in fact, is a highly practical political concept supported by facts and historical examples. Whenever a utopian world is discussed, it almost seems like it is something more fantasy and not ever truly meant for human possibility. Reading Isolation Moderation makes one believe that a utopian world does not have to be an idealized dream, but that it is actually very practical and achievable. The most important matter for nations to achieve harmony is to commit to being peaceful and minding their own business. International treaties or pacts become meaningless when individual nations realize what is best for them, and start implementing it. Peace is a default state of humanity, and this is what makes Isolation Moderation a strong political thought of the modern world—by giving a blueprint for a utopian world. Armed neutrality is an important part of achieving this blueprint.
When a nation adopts armed neutrality, it sends a strong message to rival states that any military aggression on their part will not be tolerated. Armed neutrality will prevent most potential wars from even starting. A large number of nations today are embroiled in different disputes with each other. In almost all of these conflicts, each side believes that they are right and the other is wrong. One party ends up initiating a military campaign to take resources from another, and conflicts arise. This is among the key factors that result in never-ending war in today's world and throughout history. There can be a limitless number of factors that can spark a war, as conflicts continue to surface consistently, even among largely liberal and democratic countries.
Humanity's past was even more centered on war and conquest than today. Nations who could not effectively stand up to their enemies' aggressive behaviors ended up perishing. There are numerous examples of states that were once prominent, but no longer exist today. Only the very fittest could survive and maintain their existence. Nations who survive and thrive are mainly those who were conquerors themselves or those who were neutral and peaceful (but also very well-prepared for war at the same time). These have included conquering nations such as Great Britain or France, and even peaceful nations such as Switzerland.
Armed Neutrality – Switzerland as a Case Study
The Swiss military has been one of the most effective self-defense forces for centuries. The region was a part of the Holy Roman Empire for much of the Medieval Age. The Swiss population mainly consisted of peasants, and its military was nothing more than a militia. Unpopular policies (which included border disputes) by the Austrian Hasburgs led its inhabitants to develop a strong sense of protectiveness for their land and its way of life. Although it did not have a strong central army of its own, its peasants began to resist outside control. A large part of the male population began preparing for potential war. Soon after, the Swiss were able to inflict two successive defeats on the disproportionately larger and more powerful Austrian armies at the Battle of Morgarten (1315) and the Battle of Sempach (1386). This initiated the start of a proud military culture within Switzerland that remains to this day. Encouraged by their victories, much of the Swiss population would train itself constantly for potential war. Since Switzerland is a very small nation, it was not in the position to expand or conquer. It was only interested in defending itself through the principles of armed neutrality. Switzerland remained peaceful and never attacked other nations. This explains why professional Swiss soldiers would often end up taking mercenary jobs for other militaries as there was no purpose in their own military when Switzerland was not facing an attack. In this role, the Swiss mercenaries would train other foreign militaries, and even served as guards in the Vatican. These overlying dynamics drove Switzerland into forming and maintaining a unique and strong military culture that was following the principles of armed neutrality.
The armed neutrality of Switzerland helped to develop the country into a prosperous and well-protected land. Switzerland is one of the wealthiest nations in the world and the standard of living remains high. This was only made possible by the hard work of its people, as well as a strong inward approach of doing things (in line with the principles of Isolation Moderation, of course). During the years in which Europe was plagued by two global wars, Switzerland chose peace and neutrality, while also maintaining a strong military defense; this discouraged attacks from outside belligerents. Both World Wars saw Switzerland wisely maintaining its sovereignty as the entire world around it was engulfed in flames. The Second World War destroyed entire countries, economies, and societies as a whole, while Switzerland remain unscathed. During the height of both the Axis and Allied dominations of Europe, Switzerland bowed down to no one. If the country had been as weak as Austria, Czechoslovakia, or the other small Balkan nations, it would have certainly been invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany. Germany, despite its overwhelming military power, and being led by one of the most belligerent dictators in history, never dared to attack Switzerland.
It is reported that the reason Germany could not invade a neutral and small nation in the heart of Europe was the knowledge of rapid military mobilization among the Swiss population. The Swiss geography also added an extra layer of protection to its defensive capabilities as the mountainous region was difficult to invade. Bunkers, towers, redoubts, and other defensive structures were built throughout the country. Switzerland was very much an independent and self-sufficient territory, lying in the heart of Europe that was completely under the yoke of Nazi Germany and the other Axis forces.
Swiss Neutrality During the Second World War
Armed neutrality arguably played the primary role in the survival of Switzerland during the Second World War, and throughout much of its history. Had it taken either side, it would not have come out of the war in good shape. If it had joined the Allies, the Germans would have been forced to invade, despite knowing it was a difficult feat to undertake. This was especially true because they could not have afforded the presence of an Allied nation residing deep within their territory when they were already invested militarily on multiple fronts. In contrast, if the Swiss had joined the Axis Powers, then the Allies would have invaded or at least called for an unconditional surrender by Switzerland near the end of the war. In either case, it is almost certain that Switzerland would have not remained untouched by war if they had chosen to intervene. Occupation of Switzerland by either Axis or Allied nations would have meant a total economic regression for the country for decades to come. The effects of the Second World War were felt for decades in almost all of the European countries. Switzerland was the nation that came out of the war safe, sound, and prosperous due to its armed neutrality.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>Isolation Moderation is a modern 21st century political philosophy that provides solutions to solve some of the world’s most complex challenges. There have been many voices over the years calling for a more inward approach for nations to adhere to, but nothing concrete has emerged from them until now. Isolation Moderation gives those voices a more structured meaning, through its four key principles in how nations should navigate the international system. If the world were to follow this approach, nations would be dealing with significantly fewer problems. Many of the ancient political and military theorists alike believed in the general ideas of Isolation Moderation, although they did not formally come up with such a term as a political expression.
Sun Tzu and the Art of War
Sun Tzu, the most famous ancient military theorist, was a definite supporter of Isolation Moderation without knowing it. If he were alive today, he would strongly align himself with this philosophy. We know this from his teachings that have been immortalized in the form of his famous book, “The Art of War”. Sun Tzu believed that the best way to win war is to avoid it as much as possible. He believed in moderation and considered wars to be costly, even for the victors. In his writings, he discusses at length on how to avoid casualties and win battles with as little bloodshed as possible. He suggests tactical maneuvering instead of direct warfare, and only recommends the latter when it can no longer be avoided. The concept of armed neutrality was one of the foremost peacetime suggestions by Sun Tzu that would lead to a war-free atmosphere for nations, which is also shared by Isolation Moderation.
He was not a fan of complex international alliances, or anything that would closely bind nations to each other. He believed that unexpected preemptive attacks on enemy forces should be carried out, and that these kinds of strategies can save lives in the long-term. Sun Tzu detested war, but approved of its use for defensive reasons. All of these elements are an important part of the military strategy of Isolation Moderation.
Kautilya and the Mandala Theory
Kautilya (commonly called Chanakya), was the most famous political and military theorist of ancient India. Many of his teachings continue to validate the importance of Isolation Moderation in the modern age. For example, he developed the "Mandala Theory" of politics, believing that neighboring states would most often end up in conflict with one another. Kautilya believed that the clash of interests between states was inevitable, and would very easily escalate into full-scale war. He was not incorrect in the observation that most wars have been fought between neighboring states. Through his Mandala Theory, Kautilya believed that “the enemy of your enemy is your friend." This means that the countries that encircle your enemy neighbor should be your allies, as they are in a better strategic position to attack your enemy and wage warfare on more fronts. However, he stressed that these entanglements should not be permanent or long-lasting.
One example of the Mandala Theory would be to examine the complex alliance system in Europe both before and during both World Wars, in where many nations aligned themselves with one another against other neighboring states. During the Second World War, Nazi Germany was waging war on different fronts, fighting the western Allied forces from one direction and the Soviet Union on the other. The western Allies worked closely with the Soviets during the war in order to successfully defeat the Axis Powers. However, once the Allied forces won the Second World War, and western Europe now shared a border with the Soviet bloc, they became each other’s enemies. So the two former allies became enemies almost as soon as they defeated their common enemy and became neighboring states.
The Mandala Theory has generally been accurate in the majority of political scenarios throughout history. The theory put forth by Kautilya is very much in line with the ideas of Isolation Moderation, which does not recommend forming long-term military alliances. Even if nations do opt for these kinds of long-term alliances, eventually they will break down at some point in time. (Nazi Germany ended up invading the Soviet Union not long after entering into a peace treaty with them, leading to one of the most destructive parts of the war). Long-term alliances are flawed by nature due to the many costs and conditions that come from being apart of them. The best kinds of military alliances are those that are temporary in nature, and designed for short-term objectives. This validates just how potent Isolation Moderation is in explaining the true political nature of the world.
Kautilya was a supporter of armed neutrality, another important element of Isolation Moderation. He knew how important a military was to safeguard a nation so he stressed heavily on maintaining an efficient military force to deter aggressors. India had developed a mastery in the art of elephant warfare, and served as one of the main suppliers of war elephants. Indian princes provided Alexander the Great and the Seleucid Empire with numerous war elephants in return for money and protection. Indians employed and maintained a large force of elephants in their military, which were considered to be a powerful weapon of the ancient world. In doing this, India went to great lengths with the goal of maintaining a strong military. India ensured its survival for hundreds of years by being prepared for war through its own form of armed neutrality. Even the armies of Alexander the Great refused to invade India upon learning that they would come against a force consisting of thousands of elephants. Ancient Indian leaders did not interfere in the affairs of outside nations, preferring a more inward focus. Kautilya also agreed with Isolation Moderation on another point, as he was a proponent of preemptive and preventive strikes.
Niccolo Machiavelli and Isolation Moderation
Lastly, Niccolo Machiavelli was also a proponent of the principles of Isolation Moderation centuries before the book was even written. Machiavelli was a highly pragmatic thinker and is regarded as one of the most influential political theorists of all time. His famous book “The Prince”, which was written to serve as a guidebook for the national leaders was all about pragmatism and maintaining power. He stressed on the importance of putting the interests of the state above anything else. For Machiavelli, everything was fair if done for the sake of broader national interests and survival. Machiavelli highly recommended the use of preventive or preemptive strikes in order to achieve political and military objectives. For Isolation Moderation, the end goal is always the broader interests of the state, a sentiment that Machiavelli would have agreed with wholeheartedly. The concept of unilateralism is also endorsed by Machiavelli. The premise behind this is that a nation should not be bound to seek the approval of other states before going forward with a decision that is necessary for its survival or well-being. Every country on earth is sovereign, and should have the freedom to take appropriate actions against a potential aggressor in order to safeguard its citizens.
Isolation Moderation believes in a strong national defense to ensure a peaceful internal environment. When the citizens of a nation live without fear for their security and well-being, they will be more productive. There will be increased economic opportunities—and, as a result of these dynamics—the nation will thrive.
Isolation Moderation: An Inward Peaceful Approach for Nations
Isolation Moderation is an innovative and forward-thinking political framework. People have been calling for such ideas for a long time, but none of them have ever been developed into a simple and concrete guidebook as exists today. Isolation Moderation gives these progressive and vital voices a name. Nations need to look within themselves to advance instead of continually focusing on the affairs of other nations. In the ancient world, military expansion was common and somewhat dependent for survival, as the world was mostly still unexplored at that time. Advanced nations benefitted from colonizing and expanding outward through military endeavors. Ancient political-military juggernauts such as the Roman Empire conquered much of the known world and established modern civilization. However, the world today struggles with overpopulation and there is no real need for colonization or military expansion. Also, the progressive and highly-interconnected free world of the modern age would never allow for any nation to dominate other nations anymore. Spending money on military expansions with the goal of invading and conquering other nations has become mostly redundant. Many modern dictators have tried doing this and have ended up destroying their own nations and losing their power. Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler are just two of many such examples of this. On the opposite end, autocratic leaders like Fidel Castro managed to stay in power for decades simply because he never tried to expand the territory of Cuba. Even the modern unipolar nations like the U.S. have largely failed in their bid to exert their power internationally. The U.S. failed in Vietnam and has been unsuccessful in their military campaigns in the Middle East.
The aforementioned political-military theorists devised their philosophies during war-ridden ancient times. They had no idea what the modern world would look like, and yet even then, their works to a large extent advocated the ideas of restraint and peace. Even when war, expansion, and colonization were widespread, they considered ideas similar to Isolation Moderation as the best approach for a progressive nation to live by. War brought wealth in ancient times, but it did so at the expense of many lives. If even the ancient philosophers were prone to adopt the principles of Isolation Moderation, then it can be said that these same concepts can be applied in the modern system of international politics as well.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>You may have heard of the ancient Greek tragedy called, “The Persians”, written by Aeschylus. It is a play that unconventionally gives a voice to the “enemy” (the Persians) after their defeat in the Greco-Persian War. It is a piece that evokes sympathy and heartache in the face of the loss, pain, and withered pride left like a shrapnel lodged in the characters’ expression and speech. Perhaps the modern Greek financial crisis is today’s version of the “The Persians”. A story of grand plans gone sour, over-indulgence, suffering, mismanagement, empty promises, and populistic trials of a country that is often seen as the black sheep of Europe.
In the late 2000s, the European Union provided the bankrupt country of Greece with a multibillion euro financial bailout to prevent the country from collapsing under its heavy debt burden. Greece, in particular, had a long history of economic mismanagement, and now other nations were on the hook for paying the large bill to get the country out of a problem of its own making. Fiscally responsible countries like Germany had to take responsibility for economically failing countries like Greece. How did we reach this point? How did Greece transform from one of the fastest growing economies in the 1950s, to the most heavily indebted EU country of the 2010s? The answer to that question would entail a trip to the past, a time before the introduction of Greece to the euro, and membership in the European Union.
This article will examine how the Greek financial crisis came to be, including its causes, long-term consequences, and lessons for the future.
1950s-1970s: The Greek Economic Miracle
Following the civil war, Greece’s economic growth averaged 7.7% between 1960 and 1973. GDP doubled in one decade, taxes were low, and the exchange rate allowed for cheap exports. Funding from the Marshall Plan, the growth of the services industry, and currency devaluation all worked towards attracting investment in the Greek economy. Infrastructure spending also grew through the “antiparochi system”.
Junta Era (1967-1974)
Like Pinochet would later do in Chile, the Greek Junta embraced free markets. Government expenditure was increased to finance “civil security” spending, residential housing expansion, and the naval industry. Deregulation of markets were accelerated, with considerable taxes on personal incomes, but decreased taxes on corporations. Farmers’ loans were written off while financial scandals like Thalassodania broke out. External debt increased, but this was concealed as public debt through a complex system between the government, banks, and infrastructure contractors.
After the Junta: Metapolitefsi
In 1974, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus served as the catalyst for the collapse of the military junta, with the center-right “New Democracy” party winning the democratic elections of the same year. The collapse of the Brenton Woods Agreement, and the oil prices hikes during the petroleum embargoes of the 1970s strained Greece’s economic growth. Inflation spiked, reaching over 25% in 1974. Applying to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1975, economic policies were applied to constrain inflation and balance budget payments. Despite this, stagflation plagued the economy as inflation crept up again, while productivity plunged due to increased labor costs and inadequate technological investment.
1981-1989: PASOK
With growing economic malaise, Greeks voted for PASOK, a socialist party in the 1981 elections. A welfare state was established, with increased social benefit transfer payments. Wages for the public sector and pensions rose, while unions became more powerful and the labor market became more rigid with regulations. Banks lent at negative nominal interest rates and subsidies were given to mid-sized companies, not considering their business outlook and productivity. Rising taxes and an intricate bureaucratic system encouraged tax evasion, while the budget deficit increased rapidly. Contractionary measures, such as tax increases, were implemented in 1985 to fight off inflation, limit the budget deficit, and create a more friendly business environment. The Koskotas-Bank of Crete scandal tarnished PASOK’s reputation, triggering a political crisis. The party lost the election of 1990 to the New Democracy party.
1992: Maastricht Treaty
In 1992, twelve EEC member-states signed the Maastricht Treaty, transforming the EEC into the European Union. The treaty set the foundation for the European Monetary System, which specified the convergence criteria towards adopting the new currency, the euro. This included maintaining a government deficit below 3% of GDP, government debt below 60% of GDP, and an inflation rate that does not exceed 1.5 percentage points of the best performing members in price stability. In 1999, Greece’s national debt-to-GDP ratio touched almost 99%, with a 5% budget deficit and an inflation rate of 2.64% (far above the criteria specified for the smooth transition towards the euro). In the 1990s, economic policy was designed towards bringing in more government revenue, which increased from 31% of GDP in 1989 to 39% in 1992. This was done instead of making significant cut-backs in spending, which fell from 52% to 49% of GDP during the same period.
2001: Adopting the Euro
In 2001, Greece adopted the euro, enjoying increased capital inflows and low borrowing costs— similar to the interest rates of fiscally responsible countries like Germany. While exports grew, imports increased twice as fast. Instead of exercising fiscal control, Greece continued to finance domestic consumption, wages, public pensions, and social transfers through increased debt, which substantially increased budget deficits. With Greece put under financial supervision through Eurostat, it was revealed that the country had not complied with the Maastricht criteria upon its entry to the Eurozone (which was also true for Germany and France). With this system, Greece was able to convert part of its liabilities to other currencies based on a fictional exchange-rate. Eurostat at the time did not have specific requirements for these elements to be included in financial statistics, with other European countries, such as Italy, taking advantage of this loophole as well.
2000s: The Financial Crisis
The 2000s were marked by widening deficits and dangerously loose fiscal policies. Government spending fluctuated above 50% of GDP in 2008 and 2009, with the majority channeled towards social welfare transfer payments. Pensions, taxes, and unemployment benefits were weaponized as political tools during election campaigns to persuade voters. Tax evasion also was rampant.
The eurozone debt crisis that was triggered by the Great Recession pushed Greece towards budget deficits of over 10% between 2008-2011. Consequently, the GDP-to-debt ratio of Greece leapt from the relatively steady 100% of GDP to around 127% in 2010, and 176% in 2015. In contrast, Italy, which followed a similar debt-to-GDP course, experienced a budget deficit of 4.6% in 2010, being able to normalize it below 3% by 2012. Historically, during periods of high budget deficits and spiking debt, countries had been able to devaluate their currency. This strategy worked at making exports cheaper and more competitive, thus increasing export revenues. In this case, however, Eurozone nations (including Greece) had no control over their monetary policy.
2008-2009: Great Recession and Balance of Payments Crisis
In September 2008, the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide financial panic. The effects of extreme deregulation, securitization of mortgage-backed-securities with subprime loans, and credit default swaps backed by a strong belief in rising housing prices, all led to the burst of a housing bubble that infected the entire financial system. The U.S. and E.U. governments attempted to stem the crisis through multiple bailouts as borrowing costs skyrocketed. The majority of Eurozone countries, including Greece, financed their deficits through inflows of foreign capital. At the time, increased interest rates and exhaustion of capital resources during the crisis caused a credit crunch and balance of payment crisis, which immobilized Greece’s finances. In response, credit agencies Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's downgraded Greek bonds to junk status, freezing markets and eventually leading to 10-year bond yields surpassing 35%.
In 2010, Greece agreed to adopt strict austerity measures, and in exchange, the EU and the IMF provided a loan of 110 billion euros in emergency funds. The Greek government was asked to increase taxes (including VAT and corporate taxes), establish an independent statistics and tax collection committee, cut red-tape, reform the pension system, cut wages, and increase privatization. Later that year, the first version of quantitative easing was introduced by the European Central Bank (ECB), with the Securities Market Program being launched to buy bonds in order to assure liquidity in struggling markets. An additional rescue program of 750 billion euros was also pledged to prevent sovereign default of any Eurozone economy. Prime Minister George Papandreou requested and then later cancelled a national referendum regarding the second bailout that was under consideration. He ended up resigning, with a temporary government formed under Lucas Papademos to carry out the austerity measures and proceed with bailout negotiations.
In 2012, Greece received a second bailout amounting to 172 billion euros, alongside more austerity measures. More than 50% of debt reductions were included in the deal, constituting the largest debt restructuring program in history. The debt reductions resulted in deep losses for private bond holders, as well as Greek pension and social security funds that were also large holders of Greek debt.
What About Grexit?
Apart from the loans that were granted by the IMF and the EU, many European banks were major private holders of Greek bonds. Grexit and the return to the Greek drachma would coincide with significant currency devaluation. This would incur huge losses of holders of Greek debt, whether it would be EU institutions, private entities or sovereign governments. Currency devaluation would also carry a substantial risk of hyperinflation, since Greece imports 40% of its food and pharmaceuticals, and 80% of its energy. The loss of financial credibility would be accompanied by a large drop of foreign direct investment and the difficulty in acquiring new debt at low interest rates.
By 2014, Greece returned successfully to international bond markets, with yields being initially below 5%. The country achieved a positive economic growth of 0.7%, while achieving a budget deficit below 3%. Austerity measures that included increases in taxes, job cuts in the public sector, reductions in government spending on health care and education, pensions cuts, and a rise in the minimum retirement age all worked to fuel public dissatisfaction. As a result, the anti-austerity left-wing party Syriza, under the leadership of Alexis Tsipras, won victory in the snap elections and pledged to renegotiate terms with Troika. In June, Greece missed its 1.6 billion euro payment to the IMF, with some describing it as defaulting on its debt. A referendum was held, giving the choice to Greek voters to decide whether the government should accept the new austerity measures and proceed with a new bailout. The outcome was a panic-driven rejection of the proposed austerity measures, which induced the government to impose emergency capital controls to prevent a run on the bank. This allowed daily money withdrawals no higher than 60 euros. Despite the referendum, a third bailout was approved of 86 billion euros from the EU, with additional austerity policies that become more lenient in 2017 to accommodate growth more rapidly. Among the measures would be an increase of VAT to 24%, increases in property and income taxes, as well as the privatization of Greece's PPC electricity utility, railways, Athens International Airport and the Thessaloniki Port.
In 2018, Greece left the bailout program after receiving the last payment of 6-7 billion euros in exchange for stricter austerity measures that would allow Greece to run a budget surplus from 2016 to 2019. In July 2019, the New Democracy party won the national elections, with Kyriakos Mitsotakis becoming the new Prime Minister. The positive outlook on Greece’s budget surplus, debt-to-GDP ratio, unemployment and growth was derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the deterioration of macroeconomic indicators, Greece managed to stifle the spread of the virus through an effective lockdown, more quickly and with lower mortality rates compared to other EU members, hailing the country as an unexpected success story.
Aftermath: Unemployment, Brain Drain, and Disillusionment
Through substantial sacrifices, Greece was able to reduce its unemployment rate from 27.5% in 2013 to 17.2% in 2019. The government debt-to-GDP fell from 181.2% in 2018 to 176.6% in 2019. Foreign direct investment increased by 33.3% in the same period, while exports reached record highs in 2019. Despite the optimistic progress of the economy, Greece continues to follow strict austerity measures. The population has been traumatized by years of unemployment, uncertainty, and failed promises. Even though it has fallen rapidly, youth unemployment was still 35.11% in 2019, having reached its peak at 55% in 2013. GDP lost a quarter of its value since the beginning of the crisis. Limited career prospects, low wages, sparse R&D projects, inefficiencies in the education and health care sector, have chronically forced students and skilled professionals to seek better opportunities outside of Greece. Various projects starting in 2020, such as ‘Rebrain Greece’ began to offer competitive salaries to talented individuals who left the country during the crisis.
Conclusion
Isolation Moderation describes the idea of classical realism, which is an international relations theory that transposes the inherent drive of self-preservation to the behavior of political entities. Expressed by the philosophical positions of Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Hans Morgenthau, the theory suggests that state actions are motivated by survivalist national interest, creating inevitably distinct hierarchies due to intense power competition. What we could extract from classical realism, and the financial saga of Greece, is that countries should perhaps ensure first that they are independent, in every sense of the word. This would include being able to survive in extreme conditions without requiring constant life-line injections of liquidity or aid. As each individual has to exercise discipline and assume responsibility in their own lives, governments and politicians should look beyond short-term benefits and work towards sustaining a healthy economy in order to benefit future generations.
If you are interested in learning about more of these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>This philosophy is connected to a wider branch of political thought called realism, which has been one of the driving forces of political theory for centuries. Classical realism has some parallels with the tenets of Isolation Moderation, mainly in the ideas regarding how states should approach political alliances.
In this piece, we will delve into the history and theorists behind classical realism, from its roots in Ancient Greece through to modern thinkers. We will also explore how the ideas of classical realism relate directly to Isolation Moderation.
What is Realism?
Realism as a whole can trace its roots back to Ancient Greece and the Athenian historian Thucydides, who was writing in the 5th Century B.C. Realism as a whole characterizes international politics as a constant state of conflict among competing nations, referred to as 'actors'.
These nations pursue power to achieve their own goals, sometimes attempting to disguise this lust for power with a facade of morality. The reasons behind this approach are explained differently by each of Realism's three dominant schools.
Classical realists, whom we will be focusing on throughout this article, believe that the reason that states pursue political influence can be explained by the basic workings of the human mind. This vision of human nature is extremely cynical, as classical realists theorize that nations, like individuals, only really act through the lens of their self-interest. Classical realism suggests that both political and individual responses to conflict or stress are driven mainly by fear, and not by any benevolent sentiments as we sometimes like to convince ourselves. Classical realists see mankind as naturally self-serving animals.
Neoclassical realists suggest that states pursue power because of three things; natural human selfishness, the anarchic dynamics of global relations, and the municipal needs of a nation. Neorealists see international relations as a chaotic mess that drives nations to act selfishly.
Realists define politics through four central tenets. The first tenet is that the collective approach of a state or nation is the main actor on the political stage, not figurehead leaders or international assemblies. The second central idea is that, as neorealists are keen to point out, international politics is chaotic, resembling little more than anarchy. No organization, such as the U.N., could ever hope to maintain supranational control over the competing states. The third tenet is that states use rational egoism to justify their policies. A state will only agree to something or decide to pursue a certain course of action if they can gain the maximum advantage from it. This extreme self-interest drives every action that a state might take. The fourth and final core tenet of realism is that nations seek to protect themselves by accumulating power and influence.
How does Classical Realism relate to Isolation Moderation?
Classical realism's cynical view of global relations has direct correlations with the ideas presented in Isolation Moderation. As we have discovered, realists believe that no overarching organization could ever hope to legitimately control the anarchy of global politics.
This means that organizations such as the U.N. are ultimately a waste of time because states are only really going to act through self-interest. States will only join an international assembly to advance their individual goals.
Complex alliance networks that bind nations into restrictive obligations do not serve the interests of the state. History has shown that such alliances can be extremely detrimental to the self-interest and personal security of states. In Thucydides' era, the Peloponnesian War wracked Greece and forced several Greek city-states to take sides and declare whether they supported Athens or Sparta.
Several of these city-states suffered catastrophic damage during the various wars. There are also examples in modern history of the cycle of destructive alliances repeating itself. In 1914 the First World War broke out due to the powerful nations of Europe embroiling themselves in a dense network of alliances and pacts. “These 'entangling alliances' caused a staggering amount of destruction, left millions of people dead and ignited bloody revolutions from Arabia to Russia.”
But whereas classical realism and its fellow realist schools of thought hold a pessimistic view of the self-interest of nations, Isolation Moderation proposes that by acting to further their independent self-interests, states can better provide for their citizens without becoming caught up in the affairs of others.
As Isolation Moderation states, “each individual country is in the best position to support its own people, and large political alliances simply take money and power away from countries and localities that can be used to benefit the people at the closest level”. This position represents a difference of opinion between classical realism and Isolation Moderation.
This offers some justification as to why states may act due to the endemic emotions of human nature. Our instincts are primed to prioritize our own survival and the protection of those closest to us. Because each nation has different goals and values, no other organization or nation can decide what a state and its people need at the domestic level.
This idea of benevolent self-interest is best explained by Isolation Moderation: “Nations are in the best position to determine what courses of action are right for themselves and their people. An outside authority simply is not in the ideal position to determine what is best for another group of people—particularly true if they each have different value systems.”
While classical realists will see this as little more than self-interest predicated on fear, IM proponents believe that only by improving its own situation first can a state then extend assistance to its neighbors. By building a strong foundation in terms of economic and military might, a state eliminates many of its own problems and can direct its attention to helping others.
“When nations improve themselves from within they are in a much better position to help other nations that need assistance. A prosperous nation will have more resources to expend in helping poorer nations”. This positive self-interest has more in common with liberalism, the traditional antithesis to realism.
Classical Realist Thinkers and Isolation Moderation
The theories of classical realism were developed over the centuries by several prominent political thinkers. In this section, we'll go over the main classical realists throughout history and explore whether any of their ideas can be linked with Isolation Moderation.
Thucydides
The 5th Century B.C. Athenian historian Thucydides is thought to be the first thinker who demonstrated theories now associated with classical realism. Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War is as much a discourse on political ideas as it is a historical account. His works showcase a cynical view of politics which would later come to influence realism.
Thucydides was born sometime around 460 B.C., although very little is known about his life. According to his brief autobiography, Thucydides fought in the Peloponnesian War before being exiled from Greece. Regardless of his personal history, Thucydides no doubt experienced things that caused him to formulate a cynical, pessimistic opinion of human nature that would inform his political theories.
Thucydides saw first-hand what destructive entangling alliances could do. The Peloponnesian War between rivals Athens and Sparta dragged several other Greek city-states into the conflict as both sides sought to expand their influence. The two powers formed their own 'Leagues' – alliances with other city-states in their spheres of influence. Athens formed the Delian League, whilst Sparta headed the Peloponnesian League.
While giving an account of a debate held in Sparta before the outbreak of the war, Thucydides attaches selfish reasons for Athenian involvement. He characterizes them as being led more by the pursuit of self-interested advancement rather than any moral compulsion to fight. Their reasoning, as recorded by Thucydides, was that moral concerns “never turned people aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement offered by superior strength.”
This rather cynical view differs slightly from Isolation Moderation's theory of 'armed neutrality' as a way of maintaining peace between competing powers but also captures some of the thinking behind this principle. Thucydides' Athenians are driven by self-interest and a belief in their own superiority, whereas an IM nation would follow this idea purely as a way of protecting themselves from external attack.
As argued in Isolation Moderation, “the main objective of having a strong national defense should not be to take more territory or resources from other nations, but rather as a means of self-preservation." However, as classical realists would argue, the fear of external attack is driven purely by the inherent framework of the human mind. Classical realism and Isolation Moderation share the sentiment of protecting against external attack but differ slightly in their reasons why a state would do so.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Another realist writer who spoke about how a state should protect itself by force was Niccolo Machiavelli, one of the most famous philosophers of the Renaissance period. Best known for his seminal work ‘The Prince’, which outlined how Machiavelli thought a ruler should act towards domestic rule and international politics. Machiavelli's ideas represent some of the main tenets of realist philosophy.
Machiavelli was born as the son of a lawyer in Florence in 1469. The political climate of Renaissance Italy was characterized by various city-states, as well as a series of papal wars against these disparate cities. Political experiments rose and fell, such as the Republic of Florence that regained control of the city after ousting the powerful Medici family.
Machiavelli came to idolize ruthless contemporaries such as Cesare Borgia, who inspired passages of The Prince. Machiavelli advocated that a good ruler may use ruthless force when the situation demands it, such as the execution of political rivals. In Machiavelli's mind, this was justified if the end result was beneficial for the well-being of the state. For Machiavelli, a powerful ruler should wield power outside of the constraints of moral conventions.
One of the main areas where Machiavelli emphasized strength and ruthlessness was when it came to the defense of the state. Machiavelli came to believe that a strong, powerful army was necessary to protect a just society and vice versa. As Machiavelli said, "The main foundations of every state are good laws and good arms you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow”.
This position is echoed to an extent by Isolation Moderation, which argues that a strong national defense is vital to create a flourishing state that allows its citizens to experience true freedom. "With a strong military in place, citizens can live their lives in the absence of war and pursue their own lifestyles without the threat of having their lives disrupted by living in a constant state of possible war with foreign armies or rebel groups.”
Thomas Hobbes
The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes is perhaps best known for his cynical, depressing quote regarding the life of most people. Hobbes believed that, especially for the poor, life was “nasty, brutish, and short” and governed by what he called the “state of nature”. Hobbes envisioned that life without a centralized powerful government would be barbaric.
Hobbes was born in 1588 as the son of a vicar. He attended both Oxford and Cambridge but quickly began to follow his own path. Hobbes was the first man to translate Thucydides' ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ from Greek into English, and he was no doubt influenced by the Greek historian's ideas.
Like Machiavelli, Hobbes believed that a powerful sovereign, whom he called the 'leviathan', should wield absolute power in exchange for protecting the populace. This would create a 'social contract' which was a series of unspoken codes of conduct for a civilized society. If a society followed the social contract, it would avoid the free-for-all of the state of nature.
The safety and security of its citizens should be a government's top priority, although Hobbes' sovereign seems more heavy-handed than the leaders of an IM state would be. Isolation Moderation advocates the principle of 'normalcy' to help citizens to live without fear. This echoes the feeling behind Hobbes' social contract.
The vision of normalcy in Isolation Moderation advocates that “people should be able to go about and live their lives without disruption, chaos, or unlawful coercion. Order must be preserved at all levels of society”. This appeals to the natural human need for security and self-preservation. We must be able to trust our fellow citizens not to pose a danger to our safety.
Hans Morgenthau
While Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Thucydides created the early foundations of classical realism, the theory did not become a modern political philosophy until the writer Hans Morgenthau developed their ideas in the 20th Century. Morgenthau was born in Germany in 1904 and emigrated to the United States in 1937. His most famous work, ‘Politics Among Nations’, made classical realism a mainstream idea in contemporary politics.
Hobbes influenced Morgenthau the most, as both shared a cynical opinion of human nature. Both thinkers believed that the crux of why humans and nations act the way they do was selfishness. Morgenthau developed this further and identified the human lust for power as the central driving force in global politics.
Morgenthau theorized that this drive for power influenced the political decisions of nations according to their self-interest. Morgenthau theorized that this was a rational political position that was set apart from ethics and moral expectations, a stance he shared with Machiavelli.
But Morgenthau maintained that ethics did still have some a part to play in politics, unlike Machiavelli. Morgenthau argued that humans are both political and moral animals. Without a moral compass to inform society, political decisions would be suppressed by barbarism. Instead, political influence should be pursued for the physical and moral protection of a nation's citizens.
Of all the classical realists, it is Morgenthau's ideas that align most closely with Isolation Moderation. This is reflected in both the need for a strong national defense as well as a policy of avoiding binding alliances. This protection also extends to the concept of normalcy.
As Isolation Moderation suggests, a strong social foundation allows a state to more effectively pursue its national self-interest. "If society is not stable from within, then having a good foreign policy will do little good”. It is in a nation's self-interest to provide a safe and free environment for its citizens.
Conclusion
There are clearly some parallels between Isolation Moderation and classical realism. The two philosophies both oppose binding international pacts that actually bring more harm than good to member states.
Both political philosophies also believe that the self-interest of the state is what drives a nation to take certain political decisions. However, the two ideologies differ when it comes to the reasons why a state would act like this.
Classical realism believes that the ugly flaws of human nature, such as fear, the need for self-preservation, and a lust for power are the true components of political policy. Classical realists such as Hobbes and Machiavelli advocate the totalitarian power of a ruthless, strong-willed sovereign to help control the more brutish elements of human nature.
Isolation Moderation, however, attaches a more beneficial outlook to the self-interested decisions of a state. If a state provides a strong national defense and retains its sovereignty, then it provides a safer, more open society for its citizens. This should not be achieved by bullying other nations, but instead turning inwards to create as solid a foundation as possible.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>Secession is a process that was quite common during the past centuries, and is still occurring today. On many occasions, the secessionist act has been justified by the region's political, economic, social, or even geographic situation separating from its parent state. A vast nation where its central government cannot maintain the necessary control and attention over all its territories also justifies the secessionist impulse simply because the rest of the state's costs, welfare, and security become too great to manage. The American colonies' separations from the British Empire during the late 1700s was a prime example of this, which naturally justified the right to secession.
According to the principles of Isolation Moderation, an act of secessionism requires two conditions in order for this to take place:
1) A specific part of the country must identify a reasonable need to leave the nation. This can be for some of the following reasons: administering the territory in question is too expensive for the national government to manage. On the other hand, the territory may be in a situation in where they pay more to fund the national government than they receive back in the form of benefits and services; Geographical barriers (such as mountains or large bodies of water) create a separation between the territory and the nation; the culture or values of the territory are so different from the greater nation that remaining unified is not a practical or desirable option.
2) The people of the territory in question should agree by a majority vote to secede from the nation. If these two steps are followed, then the national government should allow the territory to secede.
The case of Catalan secession is an important modern case, which has gone through several notable events in recent years. New legislation was developed, which allowed for the holding of a popular referendum to decide on Catalan independence. In 2017, 5.3 million people came out to vote on this referendum, with 43% of the electorate participating and a 2 million majority voting in favor of independence from Spain. This bid for independence was of course rejected by the Spanish government, despite the fact that the region met every criteria in order to secede and form their own nation.
Since then, a turbulent process has begun in which both the Spanish national government and the Catalan pro-independence leaders have been unwilling to come to an agreement, which makes any possibility of a prompt resolution to this conflict very unlikely. It can be best said that Catalonia has earned the right to form its own independent nation and should not be forced to give up on this goal.
Economy
Starting in 2008, Spain (including Catalonia), along with much of the world, underwent a massive economic crisis, which, among other consequences, caused a significant increase in unemployment and drastically impacted the welfare of the middle class across Europe. This has been one of the main economic strongholds of Catalonia and Spain as a whole, a plight which has led to deteriorated relations within the Spanish political system. This has accelerated a desire within many Catalans to seek independence from Spain. Catalonia happens to be one of the wealthiest regions in Spain, making it one of the most significant contributors to the national coffers in terms of taxes and financing to more impoverished regions of the country; a Catalan separation from Madrid would save Catalonia an enormous amount of capital. According to experts, a Catalan state could be economically viable, as it can use its wealth to invest in the long-term growth of the region. Clearly, with more money, the range of opportunities for Catalonia is immense. On the other end, a Catalan separation from Spain would lead to an enormous loss of tax revenues from one of the most prosperous areas of the country, which will undoubtedly hurt Spain. This is one of the prime reasons that Spain will never legitimately allow the Catalan region to secede.
Greater Sovereignty
By successfully seceding from Spain, Catalonia would be able to establish its own self-functioning government that depends solely on itself, allowing it to enjoy greater sovereignty. This would include having the ability to shape and decide upon its own affairs in the manner that it sees fit, according to its ideals and needs. Like any sovereign state, it would benefit from the recognition of the international community. This would come with benefits such as being able to negotiate treaties with other nations, as well as joining international organizations, like the UN.
Cultural preservation
Since the 1980s, the Catalan authorities have unleashed an ambitious development of national identity, encompassing most social areas, including education, media, politics, and the economy. All of these efforts have served as a means to establish a new state in the region.
Independence would allow the preservation of Catalan culture. Many believe that this has been historically undervalued by the Spanish state. A large part of the Catalan population identifies itself more as Catalan than Spanish, so the idea of an independent Catalan state, where its traditions, culture, and customs are preserved and shared, is ideal. After all, what country would not like to live with full identification with its traditions, culture, and beliefs?
It is worth remembering that the Spanish nation originated after the voluntary unification of the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, where the Catalan region is located.
Main obstacles to Catalan Secessionism
Despite secessionism having many strong benefits for the region, the Catalan independence movement has continually faced a series of challenges coming from many different fronts.
First, there is the legal matter pertaining to Spain’s constitution, which generally does not allow for acts of secessionism to take place. The Spanish government from the beginning has been against any form of Catalan independence, arguing the unconstitutionality of any dissolution or separation from Spain. In order to achieve any division, restructuring, or separation from Spain would require constitutional reform. The Spanish State has hindered this process from the beginning, labeling Catalan secession as illegal, while Catalonia argues that it has every right to do this.
From the point of view of international law, there is the obstacle in the justification of the pro-independence referendum that was approved in 2017. Among its main arguments in favor of Catalan secession is basing this action on the Right to Self-Determination of Peoples. This has been used as a primary argument for independence, when by definition this right is reserved to colonial territories, a characteristic that Catalonia does not represent. Additionally, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, in 2015 disavowed the possibility of using the Right to Self-Determination of Peoples in the Catalan cause by the arguments already exposed.
Conclusion
Catalan secessionism will be an ongoing tumultuous process that will not likely be resolved anytime soon. The conflicting desires of Spain to keep Catalonia intact, while nationalist groups continue to seek an independent Catalan state will continue to cause bitter tension. The Catalan desire to unify under its customs, culture, and language is an ambitious goal for many people who live in this region. Many Catalans see in Madrid a set of never-ending obstacles and limitations through the various power structures hindering the growth and great potential of one of the country's wealthiest regions.
The desire for freedom, independence, and the capability to determine their own destiny, is a powerful representation in Catalan identity. The Catalan people understand the many benefits that they can gain from seceding from Spain. Catalonia and its population are looking for the chance to form a new nation, with their own culture, economy, and language; Barcelona would then become the capital of the newly-formed Catalan state. As seen before in past revolutions, new countries are created when they release themselves from the governments and monarchies that hold them in submission and forced obedience. The struggle of the American Colonies in separating from Great Britain to form their own country exemplifies this perfectly.
For many years, Catalonia has seen its full potential blocked by Madrid. Those in favour of independence believe that this wealthy and influential region will never reach its full economic, cultural, and political potential as long as Catalonia remains part of Spain, which is why Catalonian secession must move forward.
The Committee for Isolation Moderation fully supports the right of the region of Catalonia to secede from Spain and form its own nation.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>This article will examine how these principles relate to American efforts to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Why do States Mediate?
Why do states engage in mediation? The act of mediation is time-consuming and can often be costly if the mediator offers inducements to the sides. A rational approach to international relations leads to the conclusion that a mediator must benefit significantly from the process or not undertake it. After all, if a state government used its time and resources to mediate a conflict without attaining tangible benefit for their citizens and national interest, the said government would be betraying its responsibilities.
U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a classic example of insistent high-stakes mediation. It was preceded by heavy participation in the wider Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly from 1967 and onward.
However, there are countless conflicts and crises throughout the world. What makes a state choose to mediate one conflict rather than another? After all, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tragic and has ruined thousands of lives over the years. Although the overall numbers are in dispute, there have been fewer than 10,000 casualties during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Meanwhile, the Congo crisis in central Africa since the 1990s has resulted in the deaths of well over a million individuals.
The U.S. had invested far more effort into Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it has interests in the region. Most Presidents have not hidden this fact.
The Roots of American Mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a remarkably complex one, being interlocked with a broader confrontation between Israel and the Arab states of the region.
In 1947, the United Nations voted to end the Palestine mandate, which was under British control until that time, and replace it with two states: a Jewish state and an Arab one. The members of the Arab League did not accept this solution, and a war between Israel and several members of the organization soon ensued. Israel was invaded by the countries of Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia with the goal of preventing the establishment of the newborn Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East. The end result was a victory for Israel, one in which they gained even more territory than they had originally been allotted under the United Nations partition plan.
Despite Israel’s victory in the short 1948 Arab-Israeli War, its conflict with the Arab states would only get worse over the next few years. Israel would fight its neighbors in several full-scale wars over the next three decades. This included defeating Egyptian forces in 1956, launching a preemptive military defeat over several Arab countries in 1967, and curtailing a joint military attack in 1973.
The specific dynamics of the Cold War dragged both the United States and the Soviet Union into the conflict. Eventually, the Soviet Union became closely allied with some of Israel's enemies, such as Egypt and Syria. Meanwhile, the U.S. allied with Israel and some of the more moderate Arab states, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
The Soviet Union used its leverage in the Middle East to destabilize American allies and threaten the regional oil supply. The Kremlin used the hostility between Israel and the Arab states to influence regional actors into adopting an anti-American policy. Therefore, starting with the Eisenhower Administration, the region's American policy was geared towards minimizing Soviet influence in the area.
U.S. Mediation Strategy in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
In 1967, Israel achieved an overwhelming military victory over its Arab neighbors. In six days, it defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israel tripled its size by occupying the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
The Israeli military achievement provided the United States with a golden opportunity. The superpower could now use its influence over Israel to win increased influence with the pro-Soviet Arab states. The U.S. supported Israel to help it achieve peace and offered to help the Arab states in regaining their lost territory. By doing this, the U.S. could force out the Soviets and minimize their regional influence.
This strategy worked amazingly well. Egypt switched sides and cut its close ties with the Soviet Union. The U.S. helped Israel end hostilities with Egypt in 1979, through a peace treaty. By the end of the process, the U.S. was the primary military supplier for both Egypt and Israel, and the Soviet Union was more marginalized than ever before.
The U.S. Becomes Involved in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
However, from the Carter Administration onward, it became increasingly clear that regional stability would remain outside of America's reach unless the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was successfully resolved.
The Soviet Union soon adjusted to losing Egypt and began to leverage a new anti-American coalition in the region. In the 1980s, Syria, Libya, and Iran worked with the Soviet Union to encourage the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to counter American interest in Lebanon. Later in the decade, an uprising known as the First Intifada (1987-1993) broke out in the Occupied Territories, embarrassing both Israel and the U.S.
The H.W. Bush administration put a good deal of pressure on Israel and the PLO to negotiate with each other. Israel was hesitant because it viewed the PLO as a terrorist organization. Therefore, the U.S. pressured the PLO into renouncing terrorism and recognizing the existence of Israel. When this was partially achieved in 1989, it cleared the way for the beginning of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
There have been some remarkable achievements in American mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—notably the Oslo II agreement and the Wye River Memorandum. However, it is an overall story of failure as seen most clearly with the Oslo Process's abandonment and return to open fighting in the Second Intifada (2000-2005).
The United States had proven able to get both sides to the table and gain concessions from each, as long as it had a vital national interest in the outcome. With the end of the Cold War, mediation attempts became less prosperous.
One of the reasons for that is the difficulty of resolving the complicated issues dividing Israelis and Palestinians. However, a second reason is that the American motivation lessened. It continued to mediate out of inertia and to protect other regional interests, but it did not have the same national interest to obtain results as in the past.
Multilateral Versus State Mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Multilateral attempts to mediate the conflict have failed without exception. There are several outstanding examples of this. In 1967, the United Nations appointed Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring to serve as the mediator in the conflict, but he was not taken seriously by either side. It eventually became exclusive American mediation starting with the Nixon Administration, which led to results.
Later attempts to incorporate international organizations have also failed. In 2002, the international community tried to revive the peace process through an international quartet's assistance. The quartet included the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia. This mechanism continues to hold the ostensibly leading role in negotiations. However, there has been no progress in the two decades of its operation.
The failure of multilateral mechanisms is not a coincidence. International organizations generally do not possess a unified national interest. They do not invest resources reasonably because they do not have clear foreign policy priorities.
Also, the opposing sides in conflicts tend to mistrust multilateral organizations because they contain states hostile to their interests. For example, Israel does not trust the United Nations because it has passed hundreds of resolutions hostile to its claims.
What Does This Mean for Mediation Efforts?
States mediate conflicts when the resolution of the conflict promotes their interests. When the mediator has a strong interest in achieving peace, they will use significant resources and leverage to achieve their goals. An interested party has a greater chance of success, as we can see from the spectacular achievement of peace between Israel and Egypt in 1979.
However, mediation does not succeed when it is pursued for moral reasons or by multilateral organizations. In those cases, mediators are not invested enough in the process and are not credibly committed to its success.
As the principles of Isolation Moderation tell us, states should maintain their sovereignty in both entering into mediation and overseeing it. A unilateral policy based on national interest has a better chance of succeeding and leading to genuine peace.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>After this it seemed that the communist ideals had been proven not to work and that the free market system had succeeded yet again. The world economy over the following years became even more interconnected, as globalization became the new normal. While large parts of the world did become communist in the twentieth century, most of these systems collapsed, or became more capitalist, with the holdouts fairing poorly. Communist systems also have gained a bad reputation for their widespread human rights abuses and mass atrocities. Thus, communism has an overall poor track record, considering the fact that it failed to accomplish its aims everywhere it was implemented, leading to the movement’s overall demise.
So what is the overall lesson that can be learned from this? Well, it must be said that capitalism is not a perfect system, and it does lead to economic inequality among different social classes. However, from a long-term perspective, capitalism is much more effective than communism (or other government-managed systems). Communist systems do not work and cause more problems than they solve. Capitalism, on the other hand, can eliminate inefficiencies within economies and allows for ordinary people to lift themselves out of a poor economic situation. Government-managed systems never allow for this, as a person’s fate is already pre-determined, and the common person has little, if any, opportunity to advance their own quality of life.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>The United Nations was created with the idea of promoting world peace among the nations. On one hand, it has prevented new global wars from emerging, as well as any major wars between great powers. It has also helped mitigate a number of conflicts in the developing world. However, the world undoubtedly remains a dangerous place, and genocide, terrorism, and other violent conflicts are far too present in the modern age. Many violent conflicts have sprung up throughout the world in the ensuing decades of its existence, and the UN has consistently failed to stop them. Some of the greatest failures that have happened under the UN’s watch are: the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, the inability to stop the 2003 war in Iraq, the Syrian Civil War that began in 2011, as well as the ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These are all perfect examples that show how the UN has failed to bring peace to conflicted areas, all while millions of innocent people have been killed or have had their lives severely devastated. Many of the UN’s greatest failures can often be traced back to actions (or inactions) of individual members of the permanent Security Council (consisting of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, and China), who have sabotaged or harmed efforts at peace. This has often been done through the power of veto, which only these five members have. A veto from any one of these members can effectively prevent the international intervention in a humanitarian crisis. This has been the case over the past several years as Russia has repeatedly used its veto power to prevent any kind of intervention in Syria during its long and horrific civil war. Therefore, it is ideal for the UN to end permanent membership in the Security Council, as well as to prevent any one member from holding the power of veto. Instead, all decisions should be made by the UN General Assembly, through a simple majority or two-thirds majority vote. This approach will give more parity to other countries, rather than having a handful of powerful countries control international affairs.
In other cases, organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF have consistently given loans to impoverished, Third World countries, usually with the goal of helping them develop their economies. In many of these situations, these countries were experiencing challenges that required these loans in the first place. However, many of these loans largely did not deliver the economic benefits that had originally been hoped for, while also infringing deeply upon the sovereignty of these countries. The end result of this has been many of these already poor nations becoming loaded with high levels of foreign debt that they were unable to pay off. While such loan policies are evolving and improving, and some have made a positive difference, many of the countries receiving these loans are struggling after decades of such policies and will end up having to repay this debt instead of being able to reinvest it back into their own economies, thus hindering growth.
So then, how should a modern nation deal with these many international organizations in the current age? The answer is as follows: a nation can join one of these international organizations if they choose, and they can remain an active participant. However, no nation should ever allow their sovereignty to be taken away by these institutions. All nations have the authority to manage their own territories, and they should never be told to do otherwise by an outside entity. These international organizations can create standards (non-compulsory, of course), establish programs, and offer assistance in disaster and conflict situations, provide a forum for conflict resolution, authorize military interventions, and provide technical expertise to the countries of the world. However, each nation retains the right to decide whether or not they will join these organizations, and to what extent they will participate, including in the area of funding. Nations also have the right to leave these organizations if they choose to do so.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>Many of the countries that have embraced free trade have seen their countries develop into leading world economies, with rising annual GDP. The most well-known examples of this have been the cases of China and India. Both of these countries have opened themselves up to the international marketplace, which has resulted in long-term economic success for both countries, and has also led to the development of a growing middle class.
In contrast to free trade is protectionism, which seeks to limit unrestricted trade and place high tariffs on goods coming from foreign nations, or providing major subsidies for specific industries with the goal of keeping domestic industry competitive. Protectionists frequently argue that free trade policies hurt domestic companies by causing job losses and wage reductions and introducing foreign competition. It is important to note that the implementation of protectionist measures actually hurts a nation’s economy, rather than helping it. A notable example of this occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s, where many countries responded to the economic crisis by placing tariffs upon one another. These actions ended up making the worldwide depression much worse due to the fact that it became much more expensive to conduct international trade. The United States responded to the Great Depression by implementing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in order to protect domestic producers. This tariff, which was the use of government intervention to interfere with trade, ended up causing more harm than good. Although this tariff was not the cause of the Great Depression, it definitely prolonged it by shutting the United States out of the foreign marketplace.
When governments seek to intervene in economies, they have the ability to pick which industries they support and which ones they do not. This is problematic because they may find themselves propping up industries that are no longer productive for the economy, or even serving as a hindrance for overall growth. The law of supply and demand by contrast do not choose winners and losers, but rather allow for the market to decide what industries are relevant and which ones are not. The market, rather than the government, is the best option for creating economic growth, even if there are some downsides during the process, because in the long-term, the market will correct any deficiencies that arise and continue to shape the economy for prosperity and sustainability over time.
It is also important to point out that under a free trade system, there will inevitably be people who are impacted negatively: companies close down or relocate overseas and the result can be large numbers of unemployed workers within specific communities or regions. Wages in some sectors can also be depressed as there is more competition from foreign producers. The market may even cause pressure to bring foreign workers in from various fields, making it harder to get a job domestically. This can cause friction, tension, and even violence, which can result in different groups clashing, thus causing political upheaval. Also, if major industries are negatively impacted without a means to employ those who have lost their jobs, this can cause unemployment to grow.
The key to success of free trade over time is not to leave those adversely impacted by these trade policies behind. Instead, the government should provide a worker relief fund that helps those unemployed as a result of global trade policies to get retrained for new jobs so that they can become productive again and contribute positively to their communities. This program can also be supported through state, local, and private investments as well. It is true that certain industries may die off or weaken as a result of these trade policies, but other industries can form and existing ones can grow. Giving new opportunities to those who have been negatively impacted by free trade policies then helps to reduce the negative effects (and blunt political opposition) and make free trade policies overall beneficial for everyone over the long-term. Free trade policies generally allow nations to improve their economic situations, and even if some jobs or industries may be lost in the short-term, the long-term benefits are more than enough to balance out any losses. In our current international and globalized world, this is the exact type of economic policy that should be pursued for the most long-term prosperity.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>Here is a simple definition of each of the terms:
Unipolarity - a system in where a single nation holds dominance over much of the world; the United States found itself in this position after the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed
Bipolarity - an international system where two nations hold dominance over much of the world; this was the situation during the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union each controlled large spheres of influence throughout the world
Multipolarity - a system in which more than two nations hold power over the world or regions; multiple superpowers
As of now, the current international power structure falls under a unipolar system in where the United States remains the dominant superpower in the world. This has been the case for the past 30 years, as the U.S. emerged as the victor in the decades-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. However, in recent years the U.S. has lost a lot of standing on the world stage, and it has not won a war in a very long time. The current unipolar system of the U.S. is showing signs of fracturing as other countries have grown in power, and have served to challenge this position. Countries such as China, India, Brazil and others have been growing in dominance (particularly economically) and have served to challenge the current unipolar position of the United States. However, as we can easily see throughout history, no nation can remain in power forever, with most of them coming to an end or devolving into a different system entirely. Two notable examples of this were the Roman Empire and the British Empire, who both were the dominant unipolar powers for many years before eventually losing this position. The Roman Empire divided into two separate empires, the east and west before collapsing entirely, while the British Empire went through a decolonization process in where it gave independence to many of its territories around the world.
Some have argued that a bipolar system, like the one that existed during the Cold War is actually a good system and can maintain international stability. As already mentioned, the Cold War era between the end of World War II and the falls of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union was bipolar in nature and resulted in relentless competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, with much of the rest of world forced to choose a side or being caught up in proxy wars between the two sole superpowers. Although there was some form of stability due to this arrangement and there were no global wars or large-scale conflicts, this system was still not beneficial. Forcing other countries to choose sides between the two superpowers and to serve as pawns for their greater agenda was not a good arrangement for many countries to be in. The bipolarity of the Cold War ignored the needs of many other nations, as the focus was mainly on the conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As a result, the issues faced by many countries during this time were largely ignored, unless it favored the interests of one of the two superpowers. When the Cold War ended, the sudden emergence of many ethnic conflicts, genocides, and terrorism came to being as a result of the effects of the bipolar system.
Here at the Committee for Isolation Moderation, we advocate for a multipolar system in where the world power structure is dominated by multiple superpowers. This stance is in contrast to having a single dominant superpower maintaining power (as well as having the responsibility of maintaining peace and order) on the international stage. Other countries along with the U.S. (i.e., China, India, Brazil, Russia) should be allowed to continue to develop into a new multipolar system, which could transcend the narrow dichotomy of the bipolar Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, and perhaps allow for more cooperation. With three or more superpowers in a multipolar world, there would likely be more of a tendency for powers to peacefully play other superpowers off of each other, siding with one superpower on an issue here and another superpower on an issue there. The ability to work with different superpowers, as opposed to having only one rival, may result in an entirely different, less hostile, and more cooperative dynamic than that which existed in the Cold War.
Some may argue that this type of system of multiple superpowers is not effective and will only lead to war amongst each other. Many have pointed to the long history of European wars while under a multipolar system as a reason for why this arrangement does not work. There may be some truth to this, however, with several examples throughout history having shown that an arrangement of multiple superpowers can actually lead to longstanding peace. For example, during most of the 1800s, from the first half of that century (starting from the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815) until the onset of the First World War, there was a state of relative peace in Europe, during which there was little conflict on the continent. This stretch amounted to almost a century of relative peace: a major accomplishment for Europe during that time, considering its long and violent history since the Roman Empire up until that time. Even during the Cold War, no large power ever went into a major war directly against another large power. These examples here prove that the concept of multiple superpowers can work to reduce or prevent conflict, and that it is not just an idealistic hope.
It has been often pointed out that a similar multipolar system also was responsible for producing the First World War. Yet it could be conversely argued that the First World War was started mainly due to the many “entangling alliances” into which many European nations got themselves involved with; this put them in a bind as when one nation was attacked, then its allies were bound to come to their defense. This problem is dealt with by the concept of the temporary military alliance, which does not force nations into a conflict, as these temporary alliances are only formed as needed, once a conflict is started or is imminent. Additionally, if one nation becomes too powerful and begins to threaten other nations, then a temporary military alliance can be formed to counter the threat. As noted earlier, this was the exact case of what happened during the Second World War: Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler had formed an alliance with other like-minded countries to pursue the goal of conquering large parts of the world with an alliance that became known as the Axis powers. Once the Axis powers successfully began taking over multiple countries in Europe, North Africa, and Asia, this naturally helped to create an opposing force that served as a means to balance their newfound power streak. They were countered by the Allied forces (consisting of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and others), which eventually led to the ultimate defeat of the Axis powers. The Soviet Union and the Western powers had little in common, but entered into a temporary military alliance to defeat the Axis powers; without such an alliance, it would have been very unlikely that neither the West nor the Soviet Union could have defeated the Axis powers alone. And since they had little in common with one another, in terms of political ideology and other reasons, they went their separate ways after the war rather than make commitments that were not in their interests or would never have been kept.
Also, the nearly 75-year NATO system has been credited with maintaining peace on the European continent for several decades, which is definitely a praiseworthy accomplishment. But also as mentioned, that alliance now shows signs of fracturing, and it must be noted here that there is no guarantee that this arrangement will continue to work over the long term. This is due to factors such as American public support for funding NATO may erode over time, and the Europeans themselves may decide that they no longer want an outside military bloc managing their affairs. This can be seen with a growing number of political parties and especially young Europeans themselves that have become increasingly hostile to U.S. foreign policy and European participation in American-led wars. Such trends can affect the alliance in profound ways over time. As recent events in Europe have shown us, people and nations naturally desire to control their own sovereignty over time, as well as seeking to limit outside influences in their own culture and borders.
As can be seen from the current international trends, the world is moving towards a more multipolar system as other countries continue to grow in power. This will happen simultaneously with the decline of the United States from its unipolar position. As this new multipolar arrangement begins to shape itself over the coming years, this is a system that we should support as it will lead to a better balance of power, and as a result, more peace.
If you are interested in learning more about these ideas, please order your own copy of Isolation Moderation.
]]>