Objection to R. Robinson
Mr. Robinson argues for a strategy of financial divestment of ‘at-risk’ nations to counter terrorism.
I am unsettled that Mr. Robinson has made this strategy something of a mandate by using the authority of the SEC to enforce his idea. Doing so, he added yet another level of bureaucracy to the SEC (I have read the SEC is currently estimated to consume about 2.5 of blue chip revenue due to its red tape) which is unpalatable.
However, my objection is to the strategy, not the method, of Mr. Robinson’s idea. Divestment is in my opinion a strategy somewhat akin to the old Puritan idea of stoning the rebellious child to prevent him from sin and, by extension, eternal damnation. To save the child, his life is forfeit and that is absurd. Divestment prevents corporations from trading with what Mr. Robinson deems as undesirable nations, and, as a direct result, will greatly increase the time it takes for these peoples to come out from their stone age and develop a middle class. In a thought, I believe that divestment is a feel-good strategy which entraps the world’s poor. Because poor people are more easily dictated by evil men and can be more easily led to embrace violence (they have literally less to lose), entrapment is, in a word, bad.
It is my understanding of history that the nations with a large middle class are the peaceful nations. How else does Mr. Robinson propose wealth come to these poor peoples if not by trade with the industrialized world? It appears to me that it is chiefly through an anti-divestment strategy (i.e. strong trade) with China that we, US, intends to transform that land into one flowing with Starbuck lattes and gas guzzling SUVs. A nation which once survived on rice now enjoys beef, and a people which only knew bicycles now is seeking the automobile: they are becoming a middle class society and much more amenable to the Western ways, as a people and politically.
Incidentally, this reality is an example of the social argument proposed by Asimov in his “Foundation.” It is through trade that you make a backwards people want to change into a prosperous people who prefer peace, the condition which protects their wealth.
I also believe it is unfortunate that Mr. Robinson sells his idea as an ”anti-terrorism” act of the common man. This, I believe, is propaganda which takes advantage of the average American’s patriotic inclinations and also unfairly demonizes American corporations which do some business in the nations Mr. Robinson says not to. There is a good reason why the Dartmouth Review and, among other intellectual conservatives, Mr. Buckley argued against the divestment of South Africa and it is the same reason why most liberal ideas are opposed: such ideas appeal nicely to emotion but, upon evaluation of their real world consequences, are seen to have unintended and regrettable consequences.
Afterthought: did it unsettle anyone else that Mr. Robinson was excited to be on the same team as liberal radicals? Traditionally, (and conservatives love tradition) I have found it to be a sound strategy to listen to, for example ex-President Carter’s foreign policy ideas, and support the exact opposite idea. I favor this advice on this policy as well.
