No. of Recommendations: 30
1) security zones are a public good, and countries on the inside must fund it by buying Treasurys;
2) security zones are a capital good; they are best funded by century bonds, not short-term bills;
3) security zones have barbed wires: unless you swap your bills for bonds, tariffs will keep you out.
Though the merits of these views can be debated, I think the big flaw is the notion that any country would now do a deal to obtain US security guarantee. It's like paying for a certificate of authenticity for a photo of Bart Simpson kissing Elvis.
Who would trust in it? It wouldn't even have deterrent power between signing and crisis. Despite an iron clad treaty already in place, no-one still thinks that the US would lift a finger if the Russian army rolled into Estonia tomorrow. The other Nato members are mostly honourable, but I still wouldn't book a vacation in Narva.
So the only way to move in that direction is by outright force. Might as well be clear about it.
Jim
