The Cato Institute has done good work on behalf of limited government for almost forty years. There probably has been no better voice for liberty, both political and economic. Unfortunately, the Cato Institute is also seriously isolationist in its foreign policy views. For a long time I have ignored Cato’s isolationism because of their great work on domestic issues. But an article published on The National Interest last week by Justin Logan, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, went too far.
The article was entitled “Is Estonia Worth a War?” Here are a couple of excerpts:
“Since no one in Washington favored fighting for Ukrainian sovereignty, would they really threaten it over, say, Estonia, just because the latter is a NATO member? Does the existence of an alliance commitment create an interest worth going to war over?”
“Given that Russia could not threaten Western Europe, or even most of Central Europe, it’s hard to argue that the United States has a similar interest in threatening wars to defend most of its modern-day NATO protectorates. War with Russia would be devastating for the United States, for the country on whose territory such a war would be fought, and for Russia. Allowing a state to be pulled into the Russian sphere of influence would be less costly to U.S. taxpayers and servicemembers – and likely even to citizens of the targeted state itself – than fighting over it.” (italics added)
With respect to the questions in the first paragraph, my answers are yes and yes. NATO membership creates a common interest and a common obligation. We need to follow through on it.
But the last sentence in the second paragraph is what really goes over the top, especially the part that I italicized. Consider what a “Russian sphere of influence” might mean for citizens of Estonia. Foreign policy decisions made by Moscow? Certainly. A corrupt economy run by government-favored oligarchs, like in Russia? Good chance. Freedom of speech and press? Not if it involves criticizing Vladimir Putin. A government limited by rule of law? Not if Russia doesn’t like it. And yet, this is what Mr. Logan is telling the people of Estonia they should agree to because it would likely be “less costly”. Exactly how much does the Cato Institute think freedom is worth?
Mr. Logan seems to think the word of the United States isn’t worth much either. After all, he asks, almost incredulously, would we really be willing to follow through on our promise to the people of Estonia “just because [it] is a NATO member?”
If Estonia, and who knows who else, can’t rely on our commitment because they’re too small or we deem them too unimportant, then who will rely on our commitments? Which will mean it is every nation for itself. And then war will be almost a certainty. Unless we decide that freedom, rule of law, and deciding our own fate just isn’t worth it to us, either.
Comments