U.S. lawmakers and analysts see China’s efforts to control much of the South China Sea as a serious threat, endangering regional security, freedom of navigation, and the liberal world order. Is that really the case?
Although China’s South China Sea policy is inconsistent with some of the norms and institutions of the rules-based liberal world order, Beijing does not seek to undermine this order as a whole and remains supportive of key elements of the international system.
The promise of the deal includes not only rolling back Iran’s nuclear capabilities for the foreseeable future but also paving the way toward a more constructive diplomatic relationship between Washington and Tehran. Its survival, however, depends on complex and turbulent domestic politics in both countries.
Since he started his bid for office, President Trump has been a forceful detractor of the agreement, repeatedly vowing to dismantle it. Today, his administration is conducting a review of its Iran policy, of which the nuclear deal is a critical component. He has already indicated that he wants to increase pressure on Iran, and his administration has upped the ante with the Islamic Republic, including by suggesting that America is looking to support elements pursuing a transition of power in that country.
But the nuclear deal affords the United States a number of opportunities, if the administration sustains it. The United States should clearly reaffirm its commitment to the deal; help reintegrate Iran into the international economy; keep official channels of communication open with Tehran; and engage, rather than isolate, the Islamic Republic.
North Korea remains a vexing, high-stakes puzzle. With so little known about the “hermit kingdom” leadership, how should the United States respond to North Korea’s growing nuclear capabilities? Doug Bandow provides his insights after a rare visit to the isolated nation.
2. Their deterrence effect is overrated. Some say bases make the world a more peaceful place by deterring aggression from bad actors. But, the world is more peaceful these days for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with overseas bases. And, sometimes, bases intended to deter aggression can backfire by creating fear and adversaries. Russia, for example, feels insecure as a result of the expansion of NATO and the stationing of U.S. troops and bases in Eastern Europe and right up to the Russian border in some cases. This insecurity partly explains their aggressive military actions in Georgia and Ukraine. Similarly, North Korea is motivated to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent because the regime fears nearby U.S. military bases, provocative U.S. military exercises, and frequent references to regime change.
3. They risk entangling us in unnecessary wars. U.S. military bases often cause policymakers to urge American intervention wherever conflict may breakout. But, this risks entangling us in unnecessary foreign wars that are none of our business. If conflict breaks out over maritime or territorial disputes in the East and South China Sea, for example, the United States maybe obligated to intervene against China to fulfill its security guarantees to Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines. Getting into a war with China over some uninhabited rocks of no strategic importance to us is terrible policy.
4.Technology has largely made them obsolete. It’s true that bases enable rapid military response, but modern technology has significantly reduced the problems of travel times over long distances. U.S. forces can now deploy to virtually any region fast enough to be based right here in America. An armored brigade combat team — which includes almost 5,000 troops, lots of heavy equipment, and vehicles — can get from Germany to Kuwait in about 18 days, only 4 days quicker than if deployed directly from the United States. Long range bombers can fly up to 9,000 miles in less than a day. After that, they can be refueled in the air, reducing the need to have in-place forces abroad.
America’s current foreign policy of maintaining a global military presence and intervening even when vital U.S. interests are not at stake is expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary. In a new policy guide, Our Foreign Policy Choices: Rethinking America’s Global Role, Cato Institute scholars offer a clear strategic vision and a set of foreign policy options that starkly contrasts with the foreign policy platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties.
The South China Sea has become a more dangerous place over the last year. The court’s ruling is a prime opportunity for China, the United States, and the Philippines, as well as other claimants, to put a lid on tensions.
On Tuesday, March 22nd, just four days after Salah Abdeslam, the mastermind of last fall’s Paris attacks, was finally captured, the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for brutal terrorist attacks in Brussels. The attacks, which killed more than 30 and wounded almost 200, provide another chilling reminder of how dangerous the world can be.
In response, both Europe and the United States are likely to ratchet up the war on the ground against ISIS. But, to date this approach has borne decidedly mixed fruit. On the one hand, ISIS has certainly lost significant ground over the past year. On the other hand, very little of that success can be traced directly to U.S. or French military efforts.
Rather than go through the motions focused on short-term political gains, both Europe and the United States should pursue a strategy that is likely to have hugely beneficial long-term effects as far as securing us from the minor but real threat of terrorism.
Montenegro split off from Serbia a few years ago, after the other Yugoslav republics left Serbia. Montenegro is a country of about 650,000 people with a GDP a bit over $4.6 billion. Its military employs 2,080—1500 in the army, 350 in the navy, and 230 in the air force.
Montenegro is a nice country. But what does it have to do with American security?
After all, 70 years have passed since World War II. The European Union has a larger GDP and population than America, and dramatically larger than Russia. Isn’t it time for Washington’s rich friends and allies to defend themselves? Or will Americans have to wait another 70 years before their government stops spending their money to subsidize Europe’s generous welfare states? And risking their lives because Europe can’t be bothered to put enough of its own men and women into uniform?
Montenegro. A nice place to visit. It doesn’t threaten anyone. It isn’t threatened by anyone. And it doesn’t matter to the U.S. At all.
A D.C.-based public policy research organization (or "think tank") dedicated to the values of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
