"I wanted to write one more book--and I wanted it to be about the future," Margaret Thatcher declares on the back cover of her final work, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World.

Thatcher focuses on potential outcomes of contemporary issues in international affairs, Statecraft is less about the future than of the eternal importance of capitalism and individual freedom to the world.

As the title suggests, Thatcher focuses primarily on nation-states and, specifically, what policies Western nation-states should adopt to maintain international security. She espouses her own blend of realpolitik and principled idealism. Ideally, Thatcher sees democracy and free market capitalism as the preferred structures for all nations. It's through this lens--freedom--which she analyzes international issues. Consequently, the self-interest of Western nations in conducting foreign policy is to advance the causes of freedom.

Thatcher's three most relevant arguments in Statecraft: One, Cold War history is being revised to bury the fact that the West was ultimately triumphant. Two, international law and human rights have become forces for limiting freedom not advancing it. And three, capitalism is under attack, but it remains the primary force for individual freedom in the world.

Thatcher explains in detail how the elite are revising Cold War history. According to Thatcher, academics and politicians in the West and elsewhere diminish the role of Ronald Reagan in bringing about the demise of the Soviet Union. Reagan's defense buildup that bankrupted the Soviets is being conveniently forgotten. Consequently, Western countries do not recognize the importance of military expenditure. Even during peacetime, Western countries must invest in the military to deter future conflict.

The elites also make dubious claims that neither ideology communist totalitarianism nor Western individualism prevailed. A convergence of the two ideologies has supplanted both: democratic socialism. As Thatcher explains, democratic socialism allows for political freedom, but suppresses economic freedom and highly regulates economic markets, thus limiting overall individual freedom.

The second important argument that Thatcher advances is that international law and human rights are often used to curb freedom not advance it. Thatcher points to the undemocratic nature of international organizations including the International Criminal Court and the European Union. These organizations are comprised of unelected officials with little accountability to national electorates. The EU is expanding human rights into economic territory to guarantee basic living and working standards. This ultimately limits the economic freedom of businesses and other individuals in society. For its part, the ICC claims unlimited jurisdiction, which limits national sovereignty and will also likely lead to a vast expansion of the Court’s power through broad interpretation of human rights law.

Thatcher also argues persuasively that capitalism is under attack in Europe and within international organizations. Thatcher notes the high tax rates, redistribution policies, and onerous market regulations in Europe. For their part, international organizations have an international redistributive agenda, to pilfer from wealthier nations and give to poorer nations. Yet, free markets alone hold the key to economic progress and to improve living standards in the third world.

Thatcher dedicates an entire chapter to free market capitalism. The most important prerequisites for capitalism are the rule of law and property rights. According to Thatcher, unless third world governments develop institutions to meet these prerequisites they will not progress economically. In European countries, institutions exist but markets are hindered with high tax rates and heavy regulations. Thatcher concludes that, "Capitalism can work well only if the fiscal and regulatory burdens on individuals and businesses are light."

Thatcher makes many relevant and persuasive arguments, but overall, she is too ideological and her suggestions for statecraft fail to fully consider national self-interest.

Thatcher's analysis is ideological and places too much emphasis on abstract principles, free-market capitalism and democracy. What is a nation to do if it finds that its self-interest is to support contrary principles? For example, free market democracies are not always the best allies to choose when pursuing national interests.

Patrick J. Buchanan writes in Where the Right Went Wrong:

"In the Cold War we welcomed as allies Chiang Kai-Shek, President Diem, Salazar, Franco, Somoza, the shah, Suharto, Sygman Rhee, Park Chung Hee and the Korean generals, Greek colonels, militarists in Brazil, Argentina, and Turkey, President Marcos, and General Pinochet--because these autocrats proved more reliable friends and allies than democratists like Nehru, Olaf Palme, Willy Brandt, and Pierre Trudeau."

It is true that democratic nations that engage in international trade are less likely to start conflict. But, there are times that it is in a nation-state's self interest to ally with a non-democratic country that shares a similar interest. On the surface, Thatcher would agree, as Britain allied with undemocratic regimes during the Cold War.

Where Thatcher falls short in her analysis is delineating where this threshold lies. When is it in the West's interest to promote democracy and free markets and when is it in the West's interests to ally and support undemocratic regimes? Statecraft is more about improving international security through abstract means than through national power. Thatcher fails to address this dilemma adequately.

Admirably, Thatcher is not deluded into thinking that the West can remake the world or eliminate power politics and competition between states. She is also hesitant to promote intervention solely for humanitarian causes. She does not naively think that the world has reached “The End of History.”

Thus, Margaret Thatcher’s treatise on international security is wide in scope and addresses many of the contemporary issues that nation-states face or will face in the future. Thatcher is both an idealist and a realist. She falls short in developing a framework to assess when it is in a Western nation’s interests to promote democracy and free markets and when it is not. Thatcher rightly asserts that free-markets and democratic governance liberate individuals and lead to a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world. But in the end, not all nation-states choose this path.

Article by Ryan Olivett

Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World by Margaret Thatcher

Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Prsidency by Patrick J. Buchanan