This is a question going through my head the past few days and I was wondering if you guys could help me come to a conclusion.
Blockades of a country's ports is viewed as an act of war, a violation of their right to trade with willing countries without being harassed by imperialistic third parties.
If we extend that viewpoint into the open ocean than does that not mean attacking a country's shipping (or airplanes) like off the coast of Somalia mean that the country's navy must respond? For instance what if another countrys navy started attacking the other country's shipping all across the globe.
I would like it if a nation's navy involved policing it's own defined waters to repel attacks but what if a blockade was just outside of the nations defined waters.
Would it be best if the navy just defended the nations waters and rely on private blockade runners to ship things back and forth?
Now going to war over a right to trade with two belligerents who are at war with each other is silly and I would not agree with the right to do that, even though international law states that for one of these countries to prevent another from trading with their enemy in non war material goods is a violation of the non belligerent country's neutral rights, few warring parties follow that doctrine.
All in all I am trying to come to terms with what the proper response should be. What do you guys think?
forcing other nations into "picking a side" is what led to world wars.
nazgulnarsil: forcing other nations into "picking a side" is what led to world wars.
That is certainly true. I am not advocating that any country force another country to it's side I am just curious about a non belligerent country that wants to trade with a belligerent in non combat materials. Does a neutral nation have the right to defend itself from blockades? If yes than does that mean it can protect itself from attacks on its shipping trade (airplanes, ships) from third parties when they are trading with another willing country?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
That is more of the answer I am looking for. I do like the idea of that as long as nations exist those that they merely police "their" waters. I think the fact that International waters exist (especially without homesteading them) is dangerous since it leads to the legal excuse that allows for an imperialistic Navy on governments part.
I was also just thinking that even so far as they exist (nations) they should certainly homestead ocean lots that are within their waters. After all landlocked Switzerland had to rely on the ability to trade through other countries with the rest of the world yet it was able to protect itself from invasion through saving it's resources and people by having an exclusively defensive posture. Even when the Swiss were totally surrounded and pretty much under a de facto blockad by the Nazi's and they were taking in Jewish and other refugees the Nazis worried about invading Switzerland since it would be such a bloody costly battle for them and all of this despite the small size of that nation. It would have made more sense for the Nazi's to take over Switzerland in order to more easily deploy and transport their forces to fight the Allies but the effective long term defense policy of the Swiss made it less rational.
International Waters should be gobbled up by abutting nations (in a diplomatic way) and then they should homestead them to private parties who can buy and sell lots for transportation and trade and fishing. That however would weaken governments and history shows they have no desire to limit their ability to project power.
I found these two articles as I was researching this topic that help me come to this conclusion. I think it worthy to note that hiring Blackwater to protect your ships (as long as it is private parties doing the hiring and not the government) is very different from hiring Blackwater to wage an imperialistic and aggressive war to conquer a country.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9748
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=13818
Deist:Even when the Swiss were totally surrounded and pretty much under a de facto blockad by the Nazi's and they were taking in Jewish and other refugees the Nazis worried about invading Switzerland since it would be such a bloody costly battle for them and all of this despite the small size of that nation.
I'm not sure how accurate this is. From what I recall (and very poorly) the Swiss gave up a lot of Jews to Nazis or something along those lines. Which would make sense since the Swiss never have been big fans of immigrants.
Sorry for the long delay.
The Swiss did allow many escaping refugees into their country but since you are accurate in that they are not historically immigrant friendly they eventually closed their borders (which was terrible) though illegal immigration continued until the end of the war with the help of Swiss citizens. This is something that they certainly could have improved. French Colonial African Troops and many civilian Jewish people originally ran into Switzerland at the beginning of the war, legally and illegally. Even the civilian refugees would have aided in a national defensive effort if the Nazis attacked. Not to mention that the immigration in general may have aided in their economy.
They traded with the Nazis and some of the money placed in the Nazi Swiss bank accounts was originally from holocaust victims which lead to a lawsuit a few years ago. I am not aware of any large scale scheme to deport any Jewish people however. On average with being a safe haven, the World War II Swiss far surpassed the more restrictive United States.
I found out through this website about a book called "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II". It is a great read and is not uncritical of the Swiss approach but this book was meant to show that policy of true armed neutrality is something that can be done, especially if it worked for such a small country as Switzerland against the Nazi military juggernaut. Imagine what it could do for larger countries.
The Swiss were the only country after World War I not to ignore a smart defense strategy and since they did not get involved in Imperialism they were able to conserve their resources for that purpose. Also unlike alot of the other European countries that the Nazis gobbled up, the Swiss did not rely on another country to protect them (Poland relied on France and the U.K), Multilateral negotiations (Czechoslovakia), have a terrible military defense (France with its Maginot Line and all the other countries that neglected their defenses on other silly socialistic projects) or pretend to be neutral in a push over way (Sweden allowed the German Military to be transported across their country to fight and invade others).
Though I consider myself in that camp that believes nations have the right to do nothing, I do see reasons for a neutral country to defend its shipping across the globe in order to defend commerce, free trade, and, capitalism. However, this is a slippery slope for if a country has done this it has accepted the premise that it can utiize military force outside of a very strict sense of territorial defense that might lead to the government doings even more interventions for the excuse of "commerce" (the Opium Wars coming to mind here). The parts of me for whom anarchism hasn't been vindicate say that a task force protecting shipping in transit would be acceptable as self-defense, yet I still believe that to be a sippery slope that will likely lead to a more interventionist attitude.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
laminustacitus: Though I consider myself in that camp that believes nations have the right to do nothing, I do see reasons for a neutral country to defend its shipping across the globe in order to defend commerce, free trade, and, capitalism. However, this is a slippery slope for if a country has done this it has accepted the premise that it can utiize military force outside of a very strict sense of territorial defense that might lead to the government doings even more interventions for the excuse of "commerce" (the Opium Wars coming to mind here). The parts of me for whom anarchism hasn't been vindicate say that a task force protecting shipping in transit would be acceptable as self-defense, yet I still believe that to be a sippery slope that will likely lead to a more interventionist attitude.
Hmm, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. You were right when you said they had the right to do nothing. ;)
First of all, this isn't a self defense application at all. It is the state protecting some private interest, and they are certainly not the same thing. Who pays for this defense? What regulations on shipping will the state impose on the shippers in return for this provision?
"Slippery Slope" is an understatement.
Twilight: Hmm, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. You were right when you said they had the right to do nothing. ;) First of all, this isn't a self defense application at all. It is the state protecting some private interest, and they are certainly not the same thing. Who pays for this defense? What regulations on shipping will the state impose on the shippers in return for this provision? "Slippery Slope" is an understatement.
Touche.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap