An old post I never published:
So I have been spending some time learning more about Castro and his Cuba lately, thanks to a NY Times Sunday Magazine article and American Experience: Fidel Castro. Basically, I wanted to know more so that I could actually judge him fairly - and understand what our policy towards Cuba is and what it should be.
Now that I have done that, I see that Castro's Cuba is a really good place to go to debate US anti-communist foreign policy. First, let's start with an analysis of Cuba under Castro. There are two components to his government. One, is the political component in which he was the sole authority and dissent was punished. Clearly, there is nothing to like about those policies.
Second is the economic component. At its most simple, I think we can look at Cuba's social services - where education and health for the poorest has increased - and economic production. There appears to be much to admire about Cuba's focus on training doctors and sending those doctors throughout the world. But their overall economy is and has been a mess. It seems clear, and economic theory predicts this, that there is a trade-off between economic growth and economic policy that is redistributionist / socialist.
What does this all mean for foreign policy? If the US truly hopes to create a world that allows basic freedoms and rights to all people, what policies should it tolerate? For governing, that decision seems a little more clear. Governments that deny participation by its people, dictatorships for example, should not be tolerated.
What about economics? Here, I don't think the answer is as clear. If socialism can be achieved through democracy, than I see no reason why it should be challenged or fought.
Basically, what I am suggesting is a foreign policy that opposes all dictatorships but supports all participatory governments. Sounds simple enough, right? But this hasn't been our policy. Instead, we have chosen to support capitalist systems over socialist / communist systems no matter what. We supported horribly repressive capitalist dictatorships in Chile, Iran (under the Shah), and Vietnam (during the war) just to name a few.
7 comments:
I don't think it is as simple as choosing one economic system over another. It's much more geopolitical. Take the shah or the entire middle east, for example. Do we value democracy? Yes. But, in some cases, pushing for democracy means pushing for a system that threatens American or regional (or even global) stability. Ahmadinejad was, at least putatively, elected democratically, but it isn't as though he's a great step forward for peace and liberty. Same with Putin in Russia. or Chavez in Venezuela.
It reminds me of that quote from Syriana, when, referencing a Saudi arabianesque country, the royal says: "when the citizens protest the government, they yell 'death to america.'"
It's not that I don't value democracy. I do. But I don't think foreign policy should be so monolithic in it's goals. It isn't jingoistic to suggest that foreign policy should take into account American interests. It's responsible. Even more important is regional and global stability and development. Certainly our past leaders have done a poor job on this front but that doesn't lessen it's importance. If the decision is between turning a blind eye toward a dictator who doesn't intend to disrupt regional stability and supporting a democratic revolution that would result in a leader intent on developing nuclear weapons and regional instability, I'm willing to lean toward the former, at least in the short term.
First of all, you talk about a having a foreign policy that takes into account American interests. Let's be clear that in the past, many decisions to oppose democracy and support dictatorships supported big American businesses more than any broad American interest; in Iran it was oil interests, in South America it was fruit and sugar companies.
The second point I will make is that if we are going to value American interests over democracy, let's make that clear. Let's stop with this "beacon of democracy" and "city on the hill" nonsense. Let's stop it, or let's live up to it.
I'm glad you mention Iran. While I think a theocratic democracy is possible in theory, Iran has had trouble living up to that theory. More often it has been a theocratic dictatorship and now it is more of a military theocracy. So while Ahmadinejad may be more powerful than previous presidents because of his alliance with the Republican Guard, I don't think it is accurate to say he, the elected (though likely fraudulently) president is the reason for Iran being a threat to stability. Instead it is the unelected Supreme Leader Khamenie that has long set foreign policy and pushed the government to get nuclear weapons.
I see Iran as a powerful anecdote for my belief that democracies will be more stable than dictatorships. They may not support American businesses, but that is not the same as broad American interests or stability.
I certainly wouldn't disagree that our foreign policy of, really, the past 150 years, has been a gross violation of any measure of human decency. From the Phillipines to Vietnam, from Nicaragua to Cambodia, we've been responsible for some abhorrent human destruction in the name of American interests.
I think we're in a fair amount of agreement on this point.
But we shouldn't be so careless as to dismiss wholesale an underlying goal because it has been so corrupted and mishandled.
American interests will, and I think should, be taken into account when making any foreign policy decision. Precisely because it often was the only element considered was often where our past administrations have done so poorly.
And lets differentiate between American interests of the corporate hegemonic ilk and American interests of the I'd-prefer-to-not-get-nuked-thank-you-sir kind. They are too different animals, and though I don't believe we should completely disregard the former, the latter interest is of far more interest to me in this discussion.
Let's set aside for a moment the example of Ahmadinejad. My main concern is when principles come into conflict with one other. Unfortunately, it is just a way of life that our moral principles don't lead parallel lives, and often holding on to one means disregarding another.
Now, it tends to be held that if in any given ethical system, if two principles are inconsistent, either the system is ill conceived or one of the principles needs to fall out of the system.
Democracy is all well and good. And I think it is the hallmark of a stable and fair government. But let's be clear: our fundamental moral responsibility is to the health and well-being of life. This is, in my mind, supreme over all other moral values. So when we are making normative judgments about foreign policy, first among these judgments is which harms life the least and which aims to improve life the most.
Democracy is no guarantor of improved conditions for any people. Certainly, we only have to look to the sad tale of countless nations that started as democracies and ended in tragedy.
There are simply far too many variables to make our foreign policy so rigid. We have to realize the realities that democracy may not, necessarily, be the best situation for a given group of people. Is it a good thing that democracy in Palestine meant the election of Hamas? I'm not sure. But certainly we can't afford the inflexibility so that we are forced to irrevocably support such an event.
Our commitment should be to the betterment of global society overall. That may sound campy, but I think it is true. And I believe this mandate does not require us to always support participatory democracy wherever it may be. In fact, it may actually mandate us to oppose the development of it in the short-term if that is more likely to do less harm and greater happiness than immediate democratic revolution.
I have no doubts that, in the long term, a democratic and free society promotes the greatest happiness for a given people. But lets realize that in the short-term, democracy isn't always the best answer for a society and certainly isn't the best answer for their neighbors or for us.
That was a fine comment. Very lucid and clear. You should be proud. My question though is how do we apply your very thoughtful analysis to the real world?
If I can boil your comment down to its essence, I think you are saying that we can't think only about democracy in our foreign policy. Saying we need to consider the safety and health of Americans and the world is hard to argue against. However, I cannot think of one example where opposing a growing democracy has or would have made us more safe. Was Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 a threat to world peace? Or did Pinochet in Chile make the Americas more safe?
Now, maybe if I rephrase the point of the post, I could make it less controversial. What if I say that we shouldn't oppose economic systems in themselves, as socialism or communism are not threats when democratically selected. Instead we should oppose government systems that are not free, although how and when we do that will depend on other factors (as we do now).
While I still don't know when American interests would prevent a democracy, I think phrasing it this way can still help us avoid mistakes like the ones in Iran, Chile and Cuba (pre-Castro).
Fair point. But the test of a moral or political principle is not, and should never be, whether one can think of a real world example of its truth. The test is can we conceive of a possibility of an example that challenges it. My point is that we can easily conceive of a scenario in which fomenting democratic revolution could pose a larger threat to human life and geopolitical stability than an undemocratic state. I need not to point to any real world situation for my argument to have merit.
As to your second point, I think my argument (namely, that we should be flexible with foreign policy decisions) is somewhat consistent with allowing ourselves to accept economic systems that differ from our own. The only part with which I would firmly disagree is mandating this point.
We should allow ourselves to be opposed to an economic system that is, by its very structure, oppressive. To return, for only a fleeting second, to my Marxist roots, to the extent that one can separate an economic system and a political system, perhaps you could be right; but that is very rarely the case. What we know is that economic systems and political systems are siamese twins. In the cases of democratic socialism of the Nordic states to the Capitalism of the US, while there are notable differences, they don't impact our political system.
Contrast that with, for example, China, where State control of the means of production is inextricably linked with the Government's ability and inclination to oppress its people.
I'm simply saying we shouldn't tie our hands behind our backs. When we see oppression, when we see a threat to our or other's security, lets call a spade a spade and be willing to oppose it.
I'm actually not sure what we are arguing about anymore. Is the sticking point that my post said we should support all movements for democracy and you think there might be situations where we would want to oppose a democracy for American interests?
While I don't really see anything wrong with allowing American interests to be something we consider, I don't see how that has helped us in the past. All of the examples we have already mentioned were justified as in the interests of America but were disasters.
The fact that we can't think of an example from history (and the best example current situation we could think of is Saudi Arabia, which I am not convinced we should oppose a democracy there - maybe that is an argument for another post), shows me that we have seriously overvalued, or misrepresented and misunderstood rather, this American interest.
I want us to move away from the flawed decisions of our past. And to do that I think we need to recognize that preventing democracies and installing US-friendly, but seriously oppressive, regimes is both cruel and counterproductive in the long run.
Might there be a case where we would need to oppose a democracy for a worthwhile goal? I suppose. But more often we are likely to overestimate the negative effects of these democratic changes and underestimate the long term benefits.
I think our argument has likely wormed its way mostly to a place of agreement. I think my original point was actually a small one that I may have overstated: that merely we shouldn't be so rigid. And that far too often we hold ourselves to "principles"--e.g. domino theory of communism--failing to assess other countervailing variables that we should have assessed before making high stakes foreign policy decisions.
Call it holistic foreign policy if you want.
That said, we're mainly in agreement. We've (or rather they)made some contemptible decisions in the past and its incumbent on current and future leaders to recognize these failures and not repeat them.
But the way out I think is not to look at the past, assess failures and draw broad principles designed to avoid them. If only because we tend to be as bad at this as we have been in past policy decisions, and because the risk of unintended consequences is too high.
The way forward should be to ensure that those making decisions have a detailed understanding of where we have gone wrong, where we have succeeded, and, most importantly, an impeccable knowledge of the current situation.
The devil, as always, is lurking in the details.
Post a Comment