Putin, Ukraine, and an Abysmal Failure of US Foreign Policy

It did not have to be this way.

Today, Vladimir Putin's forces hold the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.  Barack Obama looks weaker than ever, his presidency's previous shambles even look good by comparison.  Pundits decry the loss of US influence.  The stark truth is that there is little that the United States can do to alter the situation.

But why?

First, Putin actually has defensible reasons to enter Ukraine.  This is not to say that he could not have achieved better results with a less dramatic move.  But a border country approaching chaos gives Russia a powerful excuse to protect Russian ethnics and Russian facilities there.  What if Mexico devolved even more into violence and instability?  At some point in the near future, US forces may have to occupy parts of that country to bring stability and protect Americans living there.  Before criticizing others, a nation must consider what it would have to do in a similar situation.

The West failed in Ukraine because the United States abdicated its role, dating back to the Treaty of Versailles, to bolster free societies and free markets around the globe.  US policy has, at times used the Franklin Roosevelt philosophy of "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" in backing friendly authoritarian regimes.  But the overall goal has always been transition into free societies with economic opportunity.

That does not happen by dumping money or bombs on a nation.  It comes from a consistently articulated vision by the US foreign policy establishment that natural rights, free markets, rule of law are essential to human happiness and world peace.  Praising democratic friends, such as Britain and Israel, helps to broaden the "city on the hill" ideal articulated by Democratic and Republican presidents alike in different ways.

The vision does not just come from talking about freedom.  Diplomatic, other government, and private groups must engage fragile societies to help educate and develop faith in the essential aspects of freedom and prosperity.  Internationalize the values that Americans and others take for granted.

Instead, Obama tore apart the fabric.  He blamed the United States for the trouble in the world, never realizing that wise use of American power and influence more often puts us in the referee role.  We are keeping more conflicts apart than anyone realizes.  Until the influence and respect dissipates and the world runs riot.

We are not the world's policeman, nor should we be.  But constant engagement of rhetoric, policy, and economic influence has helped to keep the world at peace.  Obama could not see the overall benefit of US power, only the rare times that it has not turned out right.  He tore it down and now instability hits one country after another.

Power seeks a vacuum,  Obama created one.  Putin and China have been happy to step in.

And so you get what we had here last week.  Which is the way he wants it.

As for Putin, he is more Bismarck than Stalin.  He's willing to bend his own region to his economic and security goals, use social issues to rally his supporters and alienate his political opponents.  Russia's sudden worry about gays smacks of Bismarck's kulturkampf against political Catholics.  But Bismarck did not want to completely revise the international system, just strengthen Germany's position within it.  The Russian Czars acted in the same way.  Russia traditionally seeks security on its borderlands and will aggressively move to ensure it.

Had the United States remained engaged in Ukraine and kept its near century old commitment to supporting freedom, that country may have solved its own problems.  It may have remained solid enough to deter Russian fears or thoughts of aggrandizement.

China is more worrisome for a number of reasons.  As is Iran.  Both countries have more revisionist fantasies.

How laws and sausages are made

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Prince Otto von Bismarck

Over the past several months I have had the pleasure of working on the Mineral Coutny Clean Up Committee. The purpose of the committee lay in trying to formulate a law to address abandoned and unsafe buildings. Many on the committee had ideal responses to this issue formulated in their heads before getting to work.

Include me among them. Private property counts as one of the most sacred rights granted to man. Not the right to have it, but the right to work to earn it, then enjoy the rewards of that work. Interference with property rights ought to only occur after careful consideration. Property gives a man, or a woman, or a family a sense of stability and permanence. It is their rock against the slings and arrows fired by life in the real world. I saw no purpose in the ordinance myself (on that point I agreed with Gary Howell and many others), but felt that working with the committee might help create a law with less problems for average owners.

The real world often intervenes with how we view the world ideally. The county commission had a strong interest in seeing an ordinance established. Governor Manchin pushed these actions at the county level by threatening to withold funds. An ordinance would occur in some form or another. The key lay in getting a law that would be as fair as possible to property owners.

Regardless of how the press covered these meetings, they were at times contentious. Gary Howell and his supporters fought hard for a law that would limit government authority, strictly define its actions, and provide maximum protections for property owners, especially the poor and middle class. Others wanted a law that granted more robust powers and a more loosely defined authority to the county. Verbal battles raged over these issues and others. Like almost any heated discussion, the real fight lay over what fundamental principles would serve as the foundation for this law. It was agreed at one point to use a similar ordinance created by Raleigh County as a template and change it to fit Mineral County.

At the end of the day both sides got some of what they wanted. Many irrelevant terms such as "blighted area" and "junked vehicles" were expunged from the ordinance. Otherwise they might have opened a slight crack in the legal door for laws that could affect people's rights in other areas. The most obnoxious parts of the Raleigh County law lay in extremely oppressive fines, but these were mitigated somewhat. However Howell and his supporters were unable to secure a specific sliding scale of fines and time needed to complete repairs based upon income. Proposals to grant special grace periods to the disabled and those in federal poverty programs were also rejected.

Serving on a committee such as this one was a rewarding experience. Everyone who has the time, patience, and the concern for their community ought to participate in something like this at least once. Like Chancellor von Bismarck tried to explain, this was not always a pretty sight. However raised voices, argument, and dissention mean that at least two people care about their community and the people in it. Bismarck said it is better not to see laws being made, but on the other hand he did not govern a country that valued democratic republican government as we do.

I can't speak for sausage making, but take the opportunity to watch a law being made. Whether or not you like the experience, you will definitely learn a lot.