Saturday, April 05, 2008
Barr on South America
Barr's writings are very difficult to pin down. They tend to sound 'statesmanlike', but often fail to really say much of anything. As a (somewhat worrisome) example, here is a column published within the last few weeks in the AJC:
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931
Barr writes: South America remains an afterthought for government policy-makers and news show producers. Whether we like it or not, that may soon change, as well it should.
Then he spends several more paragraphs explaining why Americans should be concerned about events in South Am. he talks about oil. He talks about drugs. He talks about foreign aid.
Wait. Drugs? Oil? Foreign aid? This is the perfect place for Barr to call for an end to the horrid U.S. drug war, and for the U.S. to stop supporting American companies that choose to do business overseas, and to stop propping up dictators with foreign aid. In other words, a perfect chance for Barr to say something incontestably libertarian. Disapppointingly, he opts instead for saying not much of anything except that the U.S. (government) should "pay closer attention" to the region. Coming from an ex-CIA man, I find that phrase to be a bit creepy, frankly.
His last few paragraphs continue the non-substance, but with frightening hints of interventionism underlying the non-substance:
There may not be weapons of mass destruction lurking in the jungles of Venezuela, Colombia or Ecuador (there weren't in Iraq either, of course), but arms are flowing into the area. Venezuela, for example, is buying billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment. Leftist guerrillas and narco-terrorists remain firmly entrenched in the region, and evidence that other terrorist groups are using the area for problematic purposes is mounting.
Even if the possible loss of a significant portion of our imported oil requirement does not wake the United States from the somnambulant manner in which it views Latin America, perhaps the growing security threat in that area will —- hopefully before a major crisis jars us awake.
Our oil? Whatever. But this sounds to me like an ever-so-soft beating of the war drums. If Barr wants the American 'awakening' to the area to be peaceful and non-interventionist (Libertarian, in other words), why doesn't he say so? The Libertarian position is that the U.S. government should be 'somnambulant' when it comes to other people's lives. The Libertarian criticism of the U.S. in South America shouldn't be that the government is paying too little attention to the region, but that it is paying too much attention (foreign aid, drug war, support for overseas operations of American companies).
Why does Barr use his column in AJC to avoid saying anything actually Libertarian, if he wants to be the Libertarian candidate for president?
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc ¶ 2:36 PM
http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931
Barr writes: South America remains an afterthought for government policy-makers and news show producers. Whether we like it or not, that may soon change, as well it should.
Then he spends several more paragraphs explaining why Americans should be concerned about events in South Am. he talks about oil. He talks about drugs. He talks about foreign aid.
Wait. Drugs? Oil? Foreign aid? This is the perfect place for Barr to call for an end to the horrid U.S. drug war, and for the U.S. to stop supporting American companies that choose to do business overseas, and to stop propping up dictators with foreign aid. In other words, a perfect chance for Barr to say something incontestably libertarian. Disapppointingly, he opts instead for saying not much of anything except that the U.S. (government) should "pay closer attention" to the region. Coming from an ex-CIA man, I find that phrase to be a bit creepy, frankly.
His last few paragraphs continue the non-substance, but with frightening hints of interventionism underlying the non-substance:
There may not be weapons of mass destruction lurking in the jungles of Venezuela, Colombia or Ecuador (there weren't in Iraq either, of course), but arms are flowing into the area. Venezuela, for example, is buying billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment. Leftist guerrillas and narco-terrorists remain firmly entrenched in the region, and evidence that other terrorist groups are using the area for problematic purposes is mounting.
Even if the possible loss of a significant portion of our imported oil requirement does not wake the United States from the somnambulant manner in which it views Latin America, perhaps the growing security threat in that area will —- hopefully before a major crisis jars us awake.
Our oil? Whatever. But this sounds to me like an ever-so-soft beating of the war drums. If Barr wants the American 'awakening' to the area to be peaceful and non-interventionist (Libertarian, in other words), why doesn't he say so? The Libertarian position is that the U.S. government should be 'somnambulant' when it comes to other people's lives. The Libertarian criticism of the U.S. in South America shouldn't be that the government is paying too little attention to the region, but that it is paying too much attention (foreign aid, drug war, support for overseas operations of American companies).
Why does Barr use his column in AJC to avoid saying anything actually Libertarian, if he wants to be the Libertarian candidate for president?
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com/lnc ¶ 2:36 PM
