In a previous post, a friend and I had a largely academic debate about what to consider when evaluating whether to support growing democracies. Despite all of our back and forth and a seeming resolution, I still feel like I don't know whether the argument was over semantics and word usage or whether there was a real difference of opinion about American foreign policy. Well, there is no better way to find out than to explore real world examples. Here it goes.
I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.
Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.
I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.
Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.
There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.
This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.
Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.
I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.
Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.
I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.
I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Triangles Everywhere
A while ago I wrote about the triangle between Sunni Arab countries, Shiite countries, and Israel and the potential for two to gang up on the other. Once I looked at that situation as a triangle, I started to see triangles in other places.
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
In this post, I will talk about a triangle in Iran. The three sides of the triangle are the theocracy, democracy, and the military. Iran tries to mix a theocracy with a democracy and has a military to protect both. As in any triangle, two sides can and do join together to overpower the other.
What has happened in Iran is that the theocracy felt threatened by the democracy and has chosen to join with the military to significantly weaken the democracy. President Ahmadinejad did this by giving important positions to people in the military, creating a government largely run by the military and dependent on Ahmadinejad for their positions.
So what they have created is a theocratic military state (masking as a religious republic). The question then is how long the theocratic military state can last before the democracy (maybe paired with some of the theocracy) rises up and regains power.
The key in any situation like this is the strength of the military. In Turkey, the military considers itself protector of the democracy and regularly steps in to prevent the democracy from having too much religious influence. But one can argue that the military is so strong that it is denying real democracy by denying complete choice.
But wherever you have a strong military, you risk the military becoming the only side - becoming unstoppable. Iran risks this very thing. While the military has always been strong, I think the question among some people right now is whether the stronger of the two partners is the military or the theocracy. Is Ayatollah Khamenei creating a monster he can no longer control?
Don't Apologize
A lot has been made, specifically from the far right, about President Obama acknowledging America's mistakes in the past. Now most people who are concerned about this are so far to the extreme that they will never see reason. But in case there are some that would agree with this unless they were forced to actually think about it, I will explore.
Let's start from the beginning. The first question I ask myself (and the crazy uber-patriotic folks on the right) is whether the US has made any mistakes in foreign policy in the past. Unless you think America, like God, is omnipotent and never makes mistakes, the obvious answer is yes.
The next question is whether countries should apologize or otherwise atone for their sins. If the answer is no, we shouldn't apologize, then no other country should have to apologize for any of their mistakes or crimes. Of course though we call on other countries to acknowledge their mistakes and crimes.
If you answer both of these questions reasonably - that we have made mistakes and that countries that make mistakes should acknowledge them and learn from them - then it makes sense to do what President Obama has done on occasion.
Unfortunately, America has a vocal jingoistic segment that somehow feels apologizing is unpatriotic. Hopefully these people are patriotic enough to refuse to apologize to their friends and family, as that would be afront to their pride. In which case, they will have poor relationships and deservedly so. For America, I would rather we recognize the mistakes we have made and learn from them. And while doing so, maybe the countries that were affected will feel comfortable that we might not make the same mistake again.
Let's start from the beginning. The first question I ask myself (and the crazy uber-patriotic folks on the right) is whether the US has made any mistakes in foreign policy in the past. Unless you think America, like God, is omnipotent and never makes mistakes, the obvious answer is yes.
The next question is whether countries should apologize or otherwise atone for their sins. If the answer is no, we shouldn't apologize, then no other country should have to apologize for any of their mistakes or crimes. Of course though we call on other countries to acknowledge their mistakes and crimes.
If you answer both of these questions reasonably - that we have made mistakes and that countries that make mistakes should acknowledge them and learn from them - then it makes sense to do what President Obama has done on occasion.
Unfortunately, America has a vocal jingoistic segment that somehow feels apologizing is unpatriotic. Hopefully these people are patriotic enough to refuse to apologize to their friends and family, as that would be afront to their pride. In which case, they will have poor relationships and deservedly so. For America, I would rather we recognize the mistakes we have made and learn from them. And while doing so, maybe the countries that were affected will feel comfortable that we might not make the same mistake again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)