No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
John Yoo ·
Mar 5, 2011 at 7:58am
While not as spicy as the latest Law Talk podcast -- "From the Bedroom to the Boardroom" -- with Richard Epstein, my contribution to the Wall Street Journal today goes after the Obama administration's worries about getting United Nations' approval for a no-fly zone over Libya. The U.N. has become a shield for nations that oppress the economic and political freedoms of their own people, and Russia and China (who have vetoes over any U.N. action) have become the defense bar for dictators. Rather than hitch our policy to this dysfunctional international body, the administration should follow the American national interest -- which, here, is to extend democracy in the oil-rich Middle East as best we can.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
The UN is for Euro-weenies who want to posture without doing anything. Obama is the American answer to the Euro-weeny.
Jan '11
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
The UN was useful as a place to air grievances. Only the most naive and shallow idealists thought it was a place to resolve grievances.
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
I'm with you, John, except for one sentence: "The UN," you write, "has become a shield for nations that oppress the economic and political freedoms of their own people."
"Become?"
Alas, the UN has served as a shield for oppressive nations more or less since the day it came into being.
Nov '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
God, I love ricochet.
Jan '11
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
John, this is a little off-topic, in that it's not UN-bashing (that's always fun, but kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.) I'm curious. Given the extent to which we're committed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and given that the navy has been substantially whittled down over the years, do you think we actually have the military resources to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya? Is it possible that Obama is dithering because he's been told we can't do it?
Dec '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
We can set up a no-fly zone. I don't think that is an issue. Our Navy and Air Force are not particularly busy. They do not have a lot to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are predominantly ground force operations.
But it is a bigger operation than some might think.
As Gates pointed out, we must first attack Libya and bomb it to eliminate its air defenses. We want to minimize the risk to aircraft and pilots patrolling the area and enforcing the no-fly zone. Such an attack is an act of war.
Second, Gates said it will take more than one aircraft carrier to do this. So we would need either a second carrier in the Mediterranean or we would have to use air fields in the area for ground based aircraft. That probably means on Malta and on Sicily, for a start. I do not believe we currently have aircraft in these places or the logistial support they would require.
Then there is the issue of how long we would be doing this. We ended up enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq for a decade.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Add this, How about a No Pirate Zone for Somalia.... Little space given to that dilema on the world stage... 30 ships takes, 600 hostages, quite an enterprise.
Not to mention a few murders that no one seems to care about...
Any thoughts, legal or otherwise....
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
"...the administration should follow the American national interest -- which, here, is to extend democracy in the oil-rich Middle East ..."
We have had a lot of discussion about this thesis, John. The consensus seems to be that there is little hope of an American or even a European style democracy in a region which is lacking in the republican traditions necessary to sustain such an endeavor on an organic basis.
So for, democracy is hanging on in Iraq, but this was a form of government imposed by conquest and may be rejected in the future in favor of a more fragmented tribal based system (a la Afganistan), or a theocratic heirarchical system such as in Iran, once the centripetal forces of secular democracy in the form of the US and its allies are withdrawn.
The consensus here seems to be that any form of government arising from revolution in this region may be more democratic than the established ones, but far from a democracy and, undoubtedly Islamic. Much more likely to be an Iran than an Iraq.
In that context, investing American blood and gold to extend democracy in the region may not be in our interest.
Edited on Mar 5, 2011 at 2:25pmNov '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Look at South Korea, Japan, Turkey, or any number of other non-Western, stereotypically authoritarian-friendly peoples to see how cynical and flawed this line of reasoning is.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Jan-Michael Rives
Look at South Korea, Japan, Turkey, or any number of other non-Western, stereotypically authoritarian-friendly peoples to see how cynical and flawed this line of reasoning is. · Mar 5 at 3:05pm
Ask Claire about democracy in Turkey; it is a recent development there. Democracy was imposed on the Japanese but it seems to be taking to it well. Likewise South Korea as an American protectorate seems to have taken fairly well to it, but democracy is not an organic form of governance in Asian cultures. The emphasis in my quote should be on "organic", meaning inherent in the cultural tradition.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
In what US demographic exactly lies the constituency for the UN? How the hell did that place become sacrosanct in domestic US politics? Much as I despise the Corp. for Public Broadcasting and NPR, we’d do far, far more good for humanity getting rid of the UN. Yet no one even talks about it. I’d quadruple CPB funding if we could also move the UN HQ to Bujumbura or some other locale unappealing to Diplocrats. We’d all get a good chuckle as suddenly the oh-so-pious pleaders faded away from their endless confabs. Once they no longer have NYC in which to eat expense-account funded lunches before setting off on arduous mid-town shopping sprees in illegally parked limousines, the Diplocrats interest in reflexive anti-Americanism would rapidly fade. What if, instead, they only had 3rd world slums to hang out in? Maybe they’d discover a new found love for job creators? Nah, not likely. But at least we wouldn’t have to hear from them so often. Main stream media will exhibit far less patience for fruitless UN babbling if they have to listen to it w/o 1st world comforts.
Jul '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Jan-Michael Rives
Look at South Korea, Japan, Turkey, or any number of other non-Western, stereotypically authoritarian-friendly peoples to see how cynical and flawed this line of reasoning is. · Mar 5 at 3:05pm
Let's see, the Japanese Constitution was utterly subject to American approval post WWII, and left Japan as a de facto military protectorate of the US. And we keep forces in the neighborhood to support Japan in the event. Only recently has Japan begun to explore reestablishing their own military clout. South Korea stands in defiance of Chinese proxies by virtue of a significant American commitment of support.
And before declaring them politically Westernized, I strongly recommend you look into the operation of their legislatures. Wild, wooly, and often inscrutable. It has been awhile, but I read up on Asian legislatures while recovering from an injury a long time ago. It is fascinating stuff.
Turkey? Ataturk is no more, the gyros are shifting.
Jul '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
HVTs: ... Once they no longer have NYC in which to eat expense-account funded lunches before setting off on arduous mid-town shopping sprees in illegally parked limousines, the Diplocrats interest in reflexive anti-Americanism would rapidly fade. What if, instead, they only had 3rd world slums to hang out in? Maybe they’d discover a new found love for job creators? Nah, not likely. But at least we wouldn’t have to hear from them so often. Main stream media will exhibit far less patience for fruitless UN babbling if they have to listen to it w/o 1st world comforts.
There is already a solution on that under way, with no requirement to move anybody. Obamanomics.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Our politicians appear positively brilliant by comparison; for them, it's much more effective than campaigning.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Jan-Michael Rives
Look at South Korea, Japan, Turkey, or any number of other non-Western, stereotypically authoritarian-friendly peoples to see how cynical and flawed this line of reasoning is. · Mar 5 at 3:05pm
The countries you've named understood what the West had accomplished in WWII and the leaders of these countries quickly adopted the methods that made the West so successful.
There seems to be a dearth of understanding and leadership in the middle-east. To the contrary, it seems as if the middle-east sees itself as the rising power with nothing to learn from the West. Unfortunately, some in the West concur with that assessment.
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Matthew Osborn
The countries you've named understood what the West had accomplished in WWII and the leaders of these countries quickly adopted the methods that made the West so successful.
There seems to be a dearth of understanding and leadership in the middle-east. To the contrary, it seems as if the middle-east sees itself as the rising power with nothing to learn from the West. Unfortunately, some in the West concur with that assessment. · Mar 6 at 1:25am
When your wealth literally flows out of the ground and you need do little more than bottle it up to collect absurd profits, there’s no pressure to rationalize yourself economically or politically. For Mideast potentates, why bother learning lessons from people who actually have to do the dirty work of creating value? Allah has blessed you with “money for nothing” as the Dire Straits song goes. Thus among the many self-defeating aspects of America’s “Drill There, Not Here” policy is to enrich and perpetuate regimes that are anathema to our values and to our interests.
Mar '11
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
This is a great site! Anyone with Internet can ask John Yoo a question and stand a chance of getting an answer out of him. It's almost like Schumpeter's "democratization of luxury except it isn't really a luxury to ask a civil question. It's more like the democratization of democracy since pre Internet only an elite could be in a place--like Berkeley law school--where John Yoo would listen to the question. So I wanted to ask him something. Anything, just to see if I could really do it and get an answer out of him. But you have to pay the WSJ to read it. However there is this: "the American national interest -- which, here, is to extend democracy in the oil-rich Middle East as best we can." Finally someone agrees with me! This has been our interest in the región and beyond since Jefferson sent the Marines to "the shores off Tripoly" in 1801. He didn't call it "extend democracy" though. He called it "extend the empire of Liberty". But that was before "liberty" lost it's capitalization and "empire" became equivalent to "nazi".
Oct '10
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
He called it "extend the empire of Liberty".
He was not referring to political democracy for the Muslim people in the region He was referring to the economic liberty of American shipping interests trying to safely get their goods from one place to another.
Mar '11
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Good Berean He was not referring to political democracy [...] He was referring to the economic liberty of American shipping interests trying to safely get their goods from one place to another. True. Maybe it's even a meaningful distinction. Maybe not. It's worth remembering (because it shows the weakness of this kind of argument by historical analogy) that not even America had American-style democracy in 1801. This "economic liberty of American shipping interests" was really the interests of anyone who had a stake in free trade, which is to say just about everyone. Today this is called "freedom of the seas" and it belongs by right to all nations on Earth. So even by your own narrow focus, Jefferson "extended the empire of Liberty." I find it hard to believe that Jefferson could have been blind to the wider strategic implications of his decision to send the Marines to Libya back then. I find it hard to believe that Jefferson could have been motivated by such a narrow focus on "shipping interests" as to send American Marines into battle halfway across the world. Maybe I'm brainwashed but we're talking about Jefferson, for the love of Mike!
Mar '11
Re: No-Fly Zones and the U.N.
Good Berean, The point is, you're free to disagree with Jefferson--"Jefferson lied/People died!"--or with it's modern-day equivalent ("extend democracy" J Yoo dixit). But I don't think you're free to disagree that the Bush doctrine is an updated Jefferson Doctrine. I say that's just a historical fact. You just come out on the Whig side of the political spectrum: anti Jefferson and anti Bush. It's OK to be a Whig. I'm a Whig myself. My point is just about a policy analysis. It's not a partisan point.