A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U.

What We Should Remember About September 11

I was only two years old but I remember the moment President Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the world Pearl Harbor was attacked and war against Japan had been declared. My parents cried and I cried with them, even though I hadn't the foggiest idea what the tears were all about.

Now sixty years later I cry for the country I love and I cry over the missed opportunities that made this ignominious terrorist attack on America possible.

For years the Congress opposed any actions leading to the assassination of foreign leaders. Congressional intelligence committees took steps to curtail human intelligence activity. A kind of "white gloves" intelligence was put in place. Reliance on satellite imaging dominated CIA activity.

In addition, we averted our gaze from terrorism because oil-producing states on whom we depend also harbor terrorist organizations. We didn't want to offend the Saudi royal family or even the prospective new president of a Palestinian state, Yasir Arafat.

We assumed as well that rational exchanges can create a stable world, that clean diplomacy would offer America a chance at global equilibrium. Yes, we saw the face of evil; we simply wouldn't acknowledge it. After all, the Cold War was over; now we could concentrate on domestic issues.

We lost our nerve. The nation that preserved democratic principles throughout the twentieth century seemed unwilling to fight for them.

Why didn't we hunt down the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole as president Clinton promised? Why did we pay China to get back the surveillance aircraft China downed over Hainan Island? Why do State Department officials refer to a proportional response from Israeli forces when its civilians are killed by suicidal fanatics?

Yes, we lost our nerve, and the Osama Bin Ladens of the world saw our nerve lost.

On September 11 the world changed. America got a wake-up call not unlike Pearl Harbor.

From this moment on the United States will test the freedom-security equation with a direct tilt in the direction of security. It will remove the "white gloves" imposed by an ACLU psychology and realize that international affairs often requires unsavory action in order to forestall terrorism.

An innocent nation has been introduced to moral realities. It has been obliged to face the idea that evil exists, that a respect for individual rights and human dignity is a concept foreign to many people on this globe.

It is not merely terrorist organizations we must root out and eradicate, but those governments that offer these groups solace. Everyone knows who they are: Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan, the Gaza strip and West Bank, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran. We must tell our European allies that if they trade with these rogue states and sell them sophisticated weapons, there will be consequences.

Yes, the internationalists will say this is irresponsible. But is it responsible to leave this nation defenseless before terrorist attack?

For years idealists and realists engaged in foreign policy disputes. It was the realists who generally won the argument, but the argument lacked sufficient context. Theirs was a thesis based on America's hegemonic power, a belief that no nation would dare challenge our influence after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Now a new age is dawning. The things we were reluctant to do until September 11 will be done. The money we wouldn't spend on defense, we will spend. The concerns over Social Security and Medicare liability seem trifling at the moment.

The vision of those 110-story towers crumbling to the ground with thousands of people trapped inside is etched in my memory. I saw the South Tower fall and I cried like a child. All my illusions are gone.

America is an exceptional nation. But exceptional nations must continually defend themselves against evil. That is the lesson of September 11, a lesson that we should not forget.

Let the thousands of dead innocent civilians be remembered by defending this homeland and, remembering as well, the Jeffersonian maxim that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

America's Role on the International Court

Bill Richardson, the erstwhile ambassador to the United Nations, recently made an ardent plea for the United States to participate in the International Criminal Court.

He was prompted to make this public declaration because the Bush administration hasn't expressed any enthusiasm for the Court and reportedly is considering abrogation of the treaty the Clinton administration signed last year, but which has not been ratified by the Senate. As Richardson notes "to pack up and leave now would send the wrong signal to the world and be a serious mistake."

Mr. Richardson argues that the International Criminal Court could help prevent the carnage so recently observed in Rwanda and Bosnia. But he is not pollyannaish; the former ambassador realizes that the treaty for continued U.S. involvement is flawed and requires remediation.

He notes that legitimate concerns can be addressed through the Court's deference to national systems for prosecuting and judging crimes. Moreover, by staying involved, the U.S. can help to establish prosecutorial guidelines and have an important role in the selection of judges and prosecutors.

On its face the Richardson position seems reasonable. The U.S. does have a stake in maintaining global equilibrium and it should attempt to stamp out genocidal behavior and other crimes against humanity.

Yet the question about the use of the International Court as a legitimate instrument for realizing these goals remains. Can the Court reduce or eliminate carnage? And is it in America's interest to participate in the Court's activities?

Although answers to these questions are tentative, evidence already exists about the role the Court has played, the cases it considers and the selective use of the word "justice" it often employs to validate its claims.

Alas, the world is a messy place with barbarism and despicable acts often on display. Which ones the Court decides to judge is more a reflection of judicial bias than some transcendent idea of lawful behavior or natural law.

For example, while there is probably justification for a war crimes tribunal for the atrocities Slobodan Milosevic committed in Kosovo, are his acts any worse than those committed by the leaders of China against the Falun Gong or the atrocities in North Korea or the political prison camps in Cuba?

Since Cuba and China (among others) sit on the Court, the issues I mentioned will not be put on the Court's docket. While it is certainly in America's interest to promote national sovereignty, sovereignty also shields political leaders in rogue states from prosecution. Only weak states are vulnerable to indictments.

Mr. Richardson also conspicuously ignores the Court's political agenda. As most representatives on the Court see it, the terrorists in the Middle East are "freedom fighters." Every Israeli maimed or killed is merely a casualty in a justifiable war. When Israelis respond, they are "war criminals." Of course, the U.S. reproves this court judgment, but it is also true that as a participant in the charade the U.S. lends legitimacy to the Court.

This condition isn't a mere flaw in the treaty; it goes to the essence of the International Court. As long as there isn't agreement on which matters will be examined, as long as anti-democratic states hold an iron grip on court representation, it is absurd to believe that American interests will be served or that justice will be pursued.

Although I do not believe the Senate will ratify the treaty, Richardson's contentions and Senator Christopher Dodd's compromise proposal for essential changes in the treaty might influence public opinion on this issue. In my judgment that would be a mistake.

Any concession that leads to U.S. participation on the International Criminal Court serves to legitimize an illegitimate process. I don't see how participation can be in America's best interest, nor do I see how legitimizing the Court's role is in the interest of other democratic nations.

Immigration, Amnesty and the Nation's Future

The North American Integration and Development Center at UCLA recently reported that broad legalization and a new visa program for undocumented immigrants would reduce the number of immigrants coming into the U.S. in search of jobs, while simultaneously raising their wages.

The study comes at a time the Bush administration is considering the "redefinition" of millions of illegal Mexican immigrants in a widespread amnesty program.

In fact, this study may be the basis for a new consensus in which business and labor unions agree that amnesty can address a demand for inexpensive labor and reduce the number of illegal migrants crossing the border.

The theory behind the study is that legalizing immigration makes immigrant labor more expensive than would otherwise be the case. Cited in this study is the factoid that wages for legalized immigrants after the 1986 amnesty rose by 15 percent.

Using 15 percent as a standard, the report contends that the number of new workers hired would fall by 25 percent, thereby undermining the incentive for illegal immigration.

The study also concludes that legalized immigrant workers tend to invest in themselves through language and skill training that boosts their productivity.

Coming out days before the President Bush-Vicente Fox summit on immigration, the timing couldn't be more propitious. However, there are huge obstacles that stand in the way of liberalizing restrictions on illegal Mexican immigrants.

For one thing, many lawmakers are opposed to any bill that rewards lawbreakers. Second, skeptics contend (appropriately in my judgment) that President Bush is playing this scenario out for some electoral advantage with Hispanic voters. And, lastly, it is difficult to know whether legalization will cut immigration as authors of the study contend or serve as an incentive for further illegal immigration.

Largely overlooked in this study are demographic and cultural considerations. Most of the growth in the American population over the next fifty years will be in the Hispanic population. Recent census figures underestimated the total Hispanic population in the United States by at least ten million (much of this underestimation is due to the fact that the overwhelming number in this grouping is illegal.)

Moreover, by 2050 Americans with a European heritage will be a minority in the United States for the first time in our history.

Recognizing this trend a prize-winning Mexican novelist, Elena Poniatowska, contends her country is reconquering territories in the United States "with a massive army of uncontrolled emigration."

She notes,

The common people-the poor, the dirty, the lice ridden, the cockroaches-are advancing on the United States, a country that needs to speak Spanish because it has 33.5 million Hispanics who are imposing their culture.

Rather than adopt the pessimistic view of Octavio Paz, the novelist who called Mexicans "losers," Ms. Poniatowska contends Paz's view is a "relic of the past."

Paz, she argues, couldn't foresee migratory tactics as a way to recover territory lost in the Mexican War. It fills her with joy to contemplate the "ever-greater influence of Hispanic life from Patagonia to Alaska."

Whether it should fill Americans with joy is another question. The danger of balkanization, of creating an officially bilingual nation like Canada, should set off alarm bells. Even if one regards Ms. Poniatowska's views as extreme, the dramatic difference in Hispanic and European birthrates and the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico will undoubtedly have a profound cultural influence on the nation.

Some will contend that assimilation will mitigate that effect. Yet recent events are not encouraging. Hispanic leaders often insist on the retention of their native culture and the Spanish language.

This gambit by President Bush might backfire since, on its face, it appears to be pandering for votes. But even if untrue, the move to offer legal status to millions of Mexican illegal immigrants has implications for the nation's future that should not be glossed over.

What kind of nation should America be? How can sovereignty be preserved if illegal immigration is rewarded? Should the nation back into a position of balkanization? What steps are being taken to assimilate the millions of new Americans?

These are not questions that implicitly carp at policy decisions; they go to the essence of what America stands for and whether its traditions can be retained. Far better, as I see it, to discuss these questions now before a demographic revolution makes the resulting Hispanic majority inevitable.

President Bush may be thinking about his near-term political future, and the UCLA study may reinforce his inclinations, but in the end I hope someone is thinking about the nation's future in the long term.

The Global Protestors and Their Target

As the events at the G-8 meeting in Genoa are hashed and rehashed it is evident that the rioters and their concerns about globalization will be on the front page for much of the twenty-first century. To the extent that the protestors are more than mere nihilists, it appears that their primary concern is the strengthening and spreading of corporate culture, a belief that the world is being changed for the worse.

Most protestors believe that international institutions (e.g., the United Nations) can mitigate the effect of corporate influence and serve to fill the vacuum left by weakening traditional entities such as nation states. They stand behind the European Union, the Kyoto accord, the forgiveness of Third World debt and the International Court.

This worldview is born from the belief that bureaucratically regulated and globally harmonized policies can submerge the dual influence of the nation state and corporate culture. It is ironic that while one of the most militant demonstrators interviewed on Italian television during the Genoa talks said he was concerned about the spread of corporate culture on a global scale, he is an avid believer in and user of the Internet as an instrument of global unity.

This view is not as contradictory as it may seem, since the protestors often embrace the World Trade Organization and appear to support regulations that restrict national sovereignty.

Moreover, the violent demonstrations are also somewhat beside the point since Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and Lionel Jospin are pushing ahead with an agenda not entirely different-in fact consonant-with the position of the demonstrators. They advocate global regulation, environmental restrictions and, to one degree or another, European unity. These are hardly surprising conditions considering the left wing orientation of these European leaders and the protestors in the street. The cleavage between protestors and Europe's political leaders is over tactics, not strategy.

Even more ironic is that in many instances big business is on the side of the demonstrators who inveigh against business activity. International corporations usually have a vested interest in regulations and laws that enhance their market position. In no real sense are these corporate leaders the product of Hayek's position on market competition.

The real divide is between the left and the traditionalist right, between those who believe in government imposed regulations and those who accept the free market, between those who accept socially engineered ideas and those who accept the will of "the invisible hand."

On the left are those who are driven by international rules and bureaucratic regulation; on the right are the free marketers who see strength in human decisions, not frailty.

This divide is real and irrepressible. A universalist cannot accept the view of a nationalist. Those who accept traditionally indigenous institutions cannot accept the imposition of bureaucratic ideas. The left speaks of solidarity in abstract terms; the right looks to homegrown local support.

Above all, the right is committed to a pluralistic model of global society. The left, by contrast, wants a homogenous cosmology of rules and laws.

In the end, these two views cannot coexist. The left sees only helpless people who need government support. The traditionalists believe in the right of each person to pursue his own course of action constrained by national institutions, yet confident in the strength and power of free will.

Who will prevail? That is the million dollar question (or should I say billion dollar question) of this century.