Protection Of Americans Abroad

[Spano]

(If this topic has been previously discussed, I apologize)

Given the dangers of doing business or travelling abroad in some places, what is the proper extent to which Americans pursuing such actions should be protected from the inherent dangers? In other words, is there any limit to which the government's sphere of force should be limited in relation to protecting the rights of Americans, or more precisely, is there any limit to the sphere in which Americans can expect our government to protect them, even if they travel there by voluntary choice?

The situations I have in mind are, for example, something like a kidnapping of an oil worker in a place like Nigeria. I'm inclined to say the U.S. government should always protect its citizens, yet I wonder about the implications of promising protection to those who willingly place themselves in harmful/risky situations. Is there ever a circumstance where the government could say, "sorry, at this point you are on your own", in those situations beyond our borders?

[Evan]

I think that is part of why borders are established. Borders tell everyone in clear terms which territory is going to be protected. If some oil worker is going to an unstable region of Nigeria, they don't have the "right" to be protected in Nigeria because American borders do not extend there. There is no jurisdiction.

The reason why this has to be is because it goes both ways. Imagine if Nigeria was obligated to protect a Nigerian student on a student visa at some hick college in the the south? That kid would be a Nigerian citizen and he would have put himself in a hostile environment to some extent (racism is still sort of prevalent in certain parts of the south from what I understand). What would be the proper response of the Nigerian government? Should they send in troops to protect that citizen or send in a gun ship or two?

The question is totally rhetorical in nature. I think if you analyze this a little more you can see that borders exist for a very concrete reason. The state department warns U.S citizens about places they consider "hot spots" where risk is high for endangerment. For example, the U.S state department warned people (in the 80s) not to travel to places like Beiruit or Sierra Leone. The reason WHY they warned those travelers/workers is because they could not guarentee their safety or use a disproportionate amount of military resources to guarantee such safety or a rescue operation.

I hope that sort of makes sense.

[DavidOdden]

There are three applicable principles of Objectivism to call on regarding this question. First is the monopoly on proper use of force: there should be a government, which has exclusive right to use force in protection of rights -- not many governments, but one. Second, people should be free to leave a country if they don't like the nature of the laws there or don't believe that their rights are being adequately protected. Third, if a government is so fundamentally evil that it is a true dictatorship, it may rightly be invaded and set free. See VOS p. 122:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers.

....

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called "Free World" consists of various "mixed economies," it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All "mixed economies" are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

It is the responsibility of the government of Nigeria to protect a foreign oil worker working in its territory, just as it is the responsibility of the US to protect the rights of a visiting Indian worker -- India should not invade the US to protect one of its citizens in the US. I disagree with the wording (and only the wording) of Evan's point about an oil worker not having a right to be protected, and agree that the worker has no entitlement to protection of his rights by the US once he is outside the US. If you cannot trust the government of some foreign country to protect your rights when you are there, you are admiting that you have left civilized society and the rule of law, and you should be prepared to take responsibility for your life knowing that the place you are going to is occupied by people who do not live as men.

[D'kian]

The situations I have in mind are, for example, something like a kidnapping of an oil worker in a place like Nigeria. I'm inclined to say the U.S. government should always protect its citizens, yet I wonder about the implications of promising protection to those who willingly place themselves in harmful/risky situations. Is there ever a circumstance where the government could say, "sorry, at this point you are on your own", in those situations beyond our borders?

A government is responsible for protecting the rights of all its citizens, even those residing in other countries. In the latter case, though, the protection is not the the same.

In the specific case of Nigeria, the US government does ahve an obligation to do what it can for the kidnapped oil workers. However, given jurisdictional issues and such, what it can do is very limited. It can pressure the Nigerian government to do something, it can send in agents to help gather information or to plan a rescue operation.

In some extreme cases, a government would be justified in sending troops to secure its citizens' rights. A good example is the Israeli rescue of hostages at Entebbe in Uganda back in the 70s. Carter's failed Desert One operation to rescue American hostages in Iran, was morally justified (the misserable failure it turned into is another matter).

There are also places where a given government may ahve little or no influence it can bring to bear. PLaces too dangerous for anyone to venture into. In such cases, said government ought to make the information available. For example, the Danish government has warned its citizens not to venture into muslim countries recently, for very good reason.

You may also recall Bush warned those willing to serve as "human shields" before the invasion of Iraq, that they were entering a war zone and the US could not respond for their safety.

BTW a government also has an obligation to protect the rigths of foreigners within its borders.

[DavidOdden]

A government is responsible for protecting the rights of all its citizens, even those residing in other countries.

....

BTW a government also has an obligation to protect the rigths of foreigners within its borders.

I'm curious to see how you justify or reconcile these two statements. I presume that you would not say that a government has an obligation to protect foreigners in other countries (this despite US foreign policy). Could you explain where these obligations come from?

[Daedalus]

The situations I have in mind are, for example, something like a kidnapping of an oil worker in a place like Nigeria. I'm inclined to say the U.S. government should always protect its citizens, yet I wonder about the implications of promising protection to those who willingly place themselves in harmful/risky situations. Is there ever a circumstance where the government could say, "sorry, at this point you are on your own", in those situations beyond our borders?

Let's take another oil-rich country, Saudi Arabia. I believe most contributors to this forum would agree that Saud royal family, the current owners of the largest oil reserve on earth, did not create their wealth. The petroleum deposits there were discovered and first brought to market by American and European corporations. Those private companies under any rational legal system would be treated as the rightful owners of the oil resources in the Arabian peninsula.

Robert Tracinski of the Ayn Rand Institute has argued, "The events of the past year have demonstrated that we cannot allow the world's largest deposits of oil to be controlled by a gang of medieval religious fanatics." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1087

Now it seems to me that if it is legitimate to invade Saudi Arabia to take back property stolen from an American corporation, why would it not be equally valid to invade Nigeria to rescue a kidnapped American worker?

[D'kian]

I'm curious to see how you justify or reconcile these two statements. I presume that you would not say that a government has an obligation to protect foreigners in other countries (this despite US foreign policy). Could you explain where these obligations come from?

First, a government must enforce the law as written. Laws against theft, for example, in any jurisdiction do not limit the crime to property forcibly taken from American citizens. If a European tourist were robbed in NYC, he could, and should, expect some help from the city's police department.

Second, a government that did nothing to protect its citizens abroad, would effectively declare open season on them. This is what happened in Beirut in the 80s (made worse by the Reagan administration's deals to reward the terrorists with arms and weapons for their sponsors in Tehran). That would severly limit their citizens' right to freedom of movement, not to mention a host of other negative consequences for the country as well.

[Spano]

The middle east nationalization of oil is one example that confuses me on this subject. On the one hand, it makes sense that a person assumes some risk by leaving the territory of the U.S. But prominent Objectvists seem to suggest that the violation of the property rights of the oil companies in the 1950's should have been met with U.S. force to prevent the seizure of the oil infrastructure by mideast governments. While it is obvious that such seizure is blatantly immoral, wouldn't the same principle apply here, i.e. the companies assume the risk to their property by operating beyond US territory, and hence beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. property protection?

[DavidOdden]

First, a government must enforce the law as written. Laws against theft, for example, in any jurisdiction do not limit the crime to property forcibly taken from American citizens.

This I agree with.

Second, a government that did nothing to protect its citizens abroad, would effectively declare open season on them. This is what happened in Beirut in the 80s (made worse by the Reagan administration's deals to reward the terrorists with arms and weapons for their sponsors in Tehran). That would severly limit their citizens' right to freedom of movement, not to mention a host of other negative consequences for the country as well.

But how is that the responsibility of the government? It's not that I don't see how nations not respecting rights is a problem -- yes, it does mean that if you do business in Crapistan, you are in danger of getting blown up or nationalised. Any man who choses to leave civilization takes a risk. I don't see how, in the context of Objectivism, that risk is something that a citizen of, say, the US is entitled to government insurance against. There has to be something in the notion of "citizen" and "rights" as essential aspects of the concept "government" that creates that obligation. The obligation to protect rights within national borders exist regardless of whether the person is a citizen or a foreigner; how does the citizen and only the citizen gain an extra right, a claim on government resources for protection against rights violations in foreign countries.

If a free nation decides to invade a dictatorship and eliminate the government that is there, that is perfectly right -- see the quote from VOS.

[AisA]

The middle east nationalization of oil is one example that confuses me on this subject. On the one hand, it makes sense that a person assumes some risk by leaving the territory of the U.S. But prominent Objectvists seem to suggest that the violation of the property rights of the oil companies in the 1950's should have been met with U.S. force to prevent the seizure of the oil infrastructure by mideast governments. While it is obvious that such seizure is blatantly immoral, wouldn't the same principle apply here, i.e. the companies assume the risk to their property by operating beyond US territory, and hence beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. property protection?

By placing virtually unlimited funds in the hands of religious madmen bent on world domination, the nationalization of the oil fields creates a threat to the rights of United States citizens in the United States. So military action to prevent or reverse that nationalization is justified not merely on the grounds of defending the rights of the businessmen and investors who developed the oil fields, but on grounds of defending the rights of the citizens back home.

[Evan]

I disagree with the wording (and only the wording) of Evan's point about an oil worker not having a right to be protected, and agree that the worker has no entitlement to protection of his rights by the US once he is outside the US. If you cannot trust the government of some foreign country to protect your rights when you are there, you are admiting that you have left civilized society and the rule of law, and you should be prepared to take responsibility for your life knowing that the place you are going to is occupied by people who do not live as men.

Yeah...you're right. I should have said what I meant (doh) and said that American oil workers in Nigeria don't have a right to be protected by the U.S government while they are overseas. You're 100% right that Nigeria would have the moral obligation of protecting people within its borders . As you said, if a citizen acknowledges that the government of the country he is visiting is unstable or doesn't have a good chance of protecting his rights he should not visit that country. If he does we can either conclude that he doesn't value his rights very much or is irrational (perhaps on some level he thinks that bad things "just can't happen to him.").

Edited February 25, 2006 by Evan

[DavidV]

I think that a free country has the right to protect its citizens when they are threatened outside of another free country, but it does not have the right to force other people to pay for it. Thus, such protection should be limited to special cases, such as diplomatic agencies, military bases, or ships at sea.

If a nation wanted to establish a zone in which civilians would be protected abroad, the proper way to do this is to establish a colony. This, I believe, is what would have been appropriate for oil production facilities that American companies developed on unclaimed land. It would be wrong, on the other hand, to protect independent facilities outside of a colony, since it would be force Americans to pay for any crazy and dangerous facility someone might decide to build in say, Somalia.

(Also, I don’t believe that there should be such a thing as citizenship, but that’s another debate.)

[Daedalus]

The Founding Fathers of this country certainly weren't paralyzed with indecision when private American merchants were threatened by the Barbary pirates in the early 1800s. Presidents Jefferson and Madison both sent warships against Tripoli and Algiers to safeguard the lives and property of U.S. civilians.

The theft of American property in the form of petroleum is no different in principle than the capture of a ship loaded with goods. The authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution had no trouble with the idea of using military force to protect private American interests in the Arab world.

Why are we moderns so timid? Where is our 21st century Stephen Decatur?