Protests in Iran; Press the Contrast
by neolibertarian
Iran has been experiencing a lot of protests in the last week. The US ought to act quickly to capture the initiative in the inter-disciplinary struggle with Ahmadinejad. Giving active support to the reformist groups (offering them tons of air-time, both in the US through copious press conferences about them and with them, and regionally (maybe through US-backed media like Radio Sawa and Al Hurra tv).
The theocracy's opponents ought to be directly supported, because they show the lie of Ahdmadinejad's vision of Islam as the virtuous alternative to liberal democracy. If he can't even rally his own co-nationals to support the system they've had for over two and a half decades, how can he put forth Iran as the aegis for the Islamization of the West?
Ahmadinejad is, by his own choosing and design, a figure in the War on Terror. He hopes to be the main figure (kind of how Hitler was the main figure of World War II or Napoleon the main figure of the Napoleonic Wars). And the War on Terror, before anything, is an ideological struggle on par with the Cold War and other global conflicts. The US must be the promoter of freedom, individualism, and representative government - to contrast with the apparent Islamo-fascist values of nihilism, bigotry, misogyny and of course fear.
They stand directly opposed to freedom, including freedom of religion, of speech, of protest, of occupation, of residence, and of so many other things. Our job as supporters of freedom is to press the contrast.
Pressing the contrast means we show ourselves in support of freedom and our other values like tolerance and democracy. We must celebrate democracy and democracies by rhetorically and actively supporting new and emerging democracies and by chastising and excluding nascent dictatorships. We need to show the world the contrast so that they can see what the choices are.
Either you can be led by horribly violent and hateful people that will ban music, clothing, dancing, parties and entertainment they find distasteful (as has happened recently when terrorist-affiliated groups get influence of localities) or you can live your life as you please.
We pressed the contrast in the Cold War. Berlin was the best example, and a microcosm of the East-West German split, itself a microcosm of the East-West World split. West Berlin and the FRG (BRD) enjoyed an economic 'miracle,' democratic reformation and high levels of technology, safety and luxury by the 1960s. East Berlin and the GDR (DDR) were mired in comparative depression, horribly authoritarian politics that competed with the Nazi-era for Most Repressive Ever, and effectively stagnant levels of technology and luxury. Safety was widespread in the GDR, except for the omnipresent abuses of the Stasi secret police.
Pressing the contrast between East and West was what led to a huge stream of refugees escaping East Germany into West Berlin, until the Wall went up. The Wall itself was an amazingly clear example of pressing the contrast, one the East German leaders stupidly lobbied for themselves. To paraphrase Reagan addressing the House of Commons: in Europe the West's armies faced East to defend from invasion, while the Communist forces also faced East to stop their people from fleeing to the West.
The contrast between freedom and tyranny is the motivating power of the conflict. It explains to everybody why we fight, to ourselves, to our soldiers, to the people we're fighting, and to the people we fight to save. It should always be our policy to press the contrast in the War on Terror. Being the good guys is more important than actually killing the bad guys in a conflict like the war on terror.
They're already weak, that's why they use terrorism instead of armies, and remote training camps instead of countries. We need to stem the tide of terrorist creation, and a great way to do that is to press the contrast.
If I had my way, we'd also get our allies (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.) to agree to a joint statement that any person in a Muslim-majority country that isn't making satisfactory steps toward liberal democracy can apply for refugee status to live in one of these free countries. That should put a little fire under 'em. Of course, that wouldn't happen because too many people are unable to separate the terrorists from the other Muslims (and the Japanese aren't terribly thrilled with the idea of Korean migrants, let alone other migrants). But it would be effective overall; it would show these authoritarian countries we mean business, it would show people around the world we're serious in our commitment to liberal democracy, and it would provide lives of wealth and education to countless people (many of whom could return to their countries and join the reformist movements).
Ahmadinejad's letter to the President was defining the terms of an ideological struggle. The Islamists have seen themselves on the level of a global ideology at least since Qutb argued it in Milestones. He placed Islam on par with Western democracy and Eastern socialism. He characterized Islam as an ideology and not a religious or ethnic distinction. Ahmadinejad pretends to believe the same thing, challenging Bush to convert the US to a Muslim country.
If he wants an ideological struggle, then let's give him one. Let's press the contrast. Give aid to democrats and reformers who want it; keep up a continuous rhetorical defense of freedom and democracy; publicly and loudly praise Muslim advocates of liberty; emphasize in press conferences every instance of honor killing, every small-time thug band that breaks up a coed party, every person blown to pieces by a Palestinian suicide bomb; don't let up the heat.
The difference between sides is what animates a conflict.
We knew the South was wrong, socially and economically, and we knew that slavery was the heart of it all. The conflict was easier because slavery was the degrading difference (even well before the war, the vast majority of Northerners were opposed to slavery, they just didn't want to take it from the South - but to say the strong majority of Yankees were anything less than anti-slavery is mistaken). This is the best stanza from battle Hymn of the Republic:In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
We knew the Central Powers were undemocratic, and it was in part the fall of the Czar that helped the US into World War I. The Germans were imperialist and anti-democratic, threatening peaceful, democratic countries like Belgium, France and the UK. Granted, the conflict was hardly clear-cut because it didn't seem to be about anything, but the clear moral difference was there for most Americans. Even before entering the war was a possibility, the US population was largely rooting for the republics to prevail against the empires.
The contrast in WWII was especially clear, with new democracies falling left and right before fascist tyranny. Ike had this to say in the D-Day order:The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine; the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe; and security for ourselves in a free world... The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory. I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory. Good luck, and let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.
The Cold War, of course, has a great model for pressing the contrast. Reagan knew perhaps more than any other President that we had to press the contrast with the USSR, and I have tons of quotes, lengthy and articulate, of Reagan and Shultz pressing the contrast. But I think this one from Reagan is especially appropriate here:Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors.
Republicans and Democracy
by neolibertarian
The Democrats are against the war in Iraq, and have trouble cheering too loudly for the development of democracy in other countries - especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon where independence and democracy are very strongly linked to Bush specifically and Republican rhetoric generally. Is this a fluke? After all, in the 1970s and 1980s a lot of lefties were criticizing the US and then the Reagan administration for not supporting democracy, for harboring authoritarian allies, and for being overly pragmatic in foreign policy. Surely that's the real left, and this is all just a departure, right?
Well, not really.
The criticism of Reagan was more on grounds of hypocrisy, since Reagan spent more time talking about democracy and freedom abroad (as relates to concrete American policy) than perhaps any President before or since. The left, by which I mean academics, activists and people near the fringe but not quite within it, criticized Reagan and the Republicans for holding onto right-wing authoritarians as a favorable alternative to left-wing totalitarians. It was primarily a way to criticize Reagan.
Between the Republicans and Democrats, it's overwhelmingly been the Republican preference to emphasize democracy, progress and freedom. While it's easy for leftists to glom onto democracy when they think Republicans are abandoning it, it's just as easy for them to run to isolationism when Republicans are weak there. That's certainly not to say that no leftists have objective or principled views on foreign policy, but there's a far more defined themerefor Republicans.
The Civil War, the first Republican-led war and a war that came about BECAUSE of the Republican victory in 1860, was characterized by pro-war Yankees as one or both of two things. First, it was often argued as a way to save the union and thus representative government; without the union, the argument went, there could be no republic. So the Civil War was then a fight for popular governance. And second, it was a fight for the freedom of both the western territories and of the slaves. The unionism/republicanism argument was more persuasive overall in the earlier parts of the war, but since then the freedom/abolition argument is all but universally favored (even to the point where few people know republicanism was put up as a justification at all).
The Cold War, heavily favored by Republicans, was also characterized as a struggle for freedom and democracy. While the Democrats were pushing the strategy of containment (hold the Soviets where they are, fight their expansion), more energetic Republicans were pushing the rollback/liberation strategy. The idea was that communism is an evil, and no person deserves to be enslaved under that system, therefore it's good on grounds of both morality and security to try and free peoples living under communist dominion. Moreover, the moral differences between freedom and communism must be exemplified, because that's the real fight.
Well the same thing applies in the Global War On Terror. We need to emphasize the difference between the world the terrorists want to create versus the world we'd like to create. Republicans are making this point much more strongly (though few politicians besides McCain and Bush are making it enough) than Democrats, and that's normaly, par for the course.
The Democrats, in the Civil War, the Cold War and the Global War On Terror - three conflicts that epitomize conflict between American-style free democracy and backwards-looking feudalism, totalitarianism and nihilism, respectively - took and are taking more "nuanced" stances.
A number of northern Democrats ('Peace Democrats' or 'Copperheads') in the Civil War wanted immediate peace negotiations with the South. They thought reuniting the union wasn't worth the cost of lives and property that it was taking. They differ from anti-GWOT Democrats by forthrightly admitting that they didn't think blacks should be emancipated. Modern Democrats don't usually say that foreigners don't deserve freedom and democracy, even if tyranny would be the result of their proposals. The Copperheads also thought that Lincoln was destroying the country and ruling as an anti-republican despot (where have we heard that before?).
In the Cold War and the War on Terror, the Democratic/anti-war position is generally one somewhere between conciliation/retreat and muted conflict. By downplaying the evils of the enemy, and laughing at those who do (whether it's Reagan calling the USSR an Evil Empire, or Bush calling three terror-backing countries an Axis of Evil) they refuse to enter into heightened conflict, anbd by extension don't put a great deal of pressure for liberal democracy. Sure, they want it, and they'll talk about it, but when there's any major cost beyond a simple spending program or diplomacy most of them aren't interested enough.
So it's no surprise that the anti-war left, which falsely seemed synonymous with democratization in years past, is almost totally uninterested in the natural and civil rights of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's always been Republicans who embrace freedom and democracy in foreign policy - though, unfortunately, even among Republicans there is a sizable number that will use any pretense to 'fight the enemy' and who don't see freedom as the motivating force in world events. But that's neither here nor there.
Afghan Elections Successful
by neolibertarian
(tip to Democracy Project)
The local and legislative election in Afghanistan seems to have gone smoothly despite violence. There was a high turnout among women, in some areas possibly higher than men. That squares with experience of newly-democratized areas, including Afghanistan's 2004 election election, Iraq's 2005 election and the South's first elections after black suffrage. Stories of women dragging their men to vote are common in such situations. That's a good sign, because it means women are going to be involved in the government and it means there's a good level of buy-in from the public for the idea of Afghan democracy.
Religion in the Iraqi Constitution
by neolibertarian
Many people are concerned over the drafting of the Iraqi constitution and the role given to religion within it. I know why they're worried, but I think it's a relatively poor indicator.
It would be wonderful if a non-sectarian, non-religious constitution came out of Iraq. Religion has no need to be included in a legal document. It's entirely appropriate in a declaration like our Declaration of Independence or something along those lines. A declaration simply states what's going on and what we value. A constitution is a framework for the bounds and authority of the state, and the rights and avenues for redress open to the populace. Religion can be a valuable inspiration, but it's not particularly useful to codify explicitly sectarian values in law.
However, if the constitution does come out with religious gobbledygook about Allah being the supreme source of law, or the inspiration and reliance on the sharia, it's not immediately the end of the world or even of the democratic reforms in Iraq. The Egyptian constitution says the same thing: "Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)." Egypt is no picnic of a government, being deceitful, authoritarian, socialist and dictatorial, but it is one of the more secular countries in the Arab world. In fact, one of the main justifications that Mubarak and his supporters use to justify their anti-democratic rule is to ask democrats whether they want to let the Muslim Brotherhood into power. The constitution might say one thing, but that doesn't mean the government or the society is controlled by radical Muslims.
It might be something done for political purposes, it might be done out of habit and tradition, it might be done to undercut religious opposition, or it might be a sign of much more troubling things to come. I'm definitely rooting for a nonsectarian Iraqi founding document, but if one fails to emerge I don't think we should overreact to what it might mean. Let's not focus on what their rhetoric is, good or bad, and instead make sure that they protect the rights and privileges of their citizens.
Whatever happens, women got to vote in the last election. I don't think things are looking rosy for the religious zealots in Iraq, no matter what flowery phrases they might get inserted in the preamble.
Idealism for Iraqis
by neolibertarian
Orin Kerr has an interesting idea about the debate over Iraq. He says that, assuming everyone in the debate wants the best for the US and Iraqi democracy, the division over the wisdom of the war in Iraq will bring us different interpretations of the same two options of staying or leaving now. Some people will believe that if the US stays the results will be good (option 1) while others believe staying would be disastrous (option 2). Some believe that if the US leaves now the results would be positive (option 3) and others think it would be horrific (option 4). The following is a comment I made to his post.
I don't think I've heard many people believably advance the idea that 3) is a likely outcome. The real debate is between anti-war people, who rank pessimistic leaving over pessimistic staying, and pro-war people, who rank optimistic staying over pessimistic leaving.
Although personally the aspect of the war more interesting to me is whether the Iraqis are seen as irrelevant or valuable. Most pro-war people, genuinely or not, characterize the Iraqis as valuable to defend. Most anti-war people characterize the Iraqis as irrelevant (not worth American dollars or soldiers). The opposite would be pro-war people unmoved by any Iraqi hardships before or after Saddam, and anti-war people who claim the Iraqis would benefit from withdrawing US intervention.
It's easy for somebody pro-war to claim to care about the Iraqis, since it costs nothing (except ethical consistency, if the beliefs are not sincere) to use it as one of many arguments for the war. It's very difficult for somebody anti-war to claim to care about the Iraqis, since in all likelihood the Iraqis would be all kinds of screwed-over if we left too soon (echoes of 1991 and the hundreds of thousands of Shi'a murdered when the US let Saddam put down the uprisings).
The combination of my four-choice-set and your three-choice-set (if 3 is excused as too improbable to be genuinely believed) is that the pro-war side has all the idealism. Since most of the leave-now arguments rely on pessimism about the war and not idealism about leaving, the pro-war arguments about fighting for freedom and democracy win the idealism award in that match-up. And since it's so difficult to claim to be motivated by love of humanity or liberty by consigning Iraqis to chaos, theocracy and terrorism, the pro-war people can easily continue to tout the benefits to regular Iraqis and again win the idealism contest.
Of course, simply being idealistic doesn't make you right, but the opposite (a stunning lack of ideals or idealism) suggests that baser interests like partisanship or amoral self-interest are at play.
Karimov Kicks US Out of K-2
by neolibertarian
The Karshi-Khanabad airbase (otherwise known as K-2) in Uzbekistan, near the Afghan border, is a very strategically important center for US operations in central Asia. It's a good spot for refueling, for assisting military operations and for moving humanitarian relief into Afghanistan. It's relatively close to China (with Tajikistan in between) and it's part of the Russian near-abroad, being just south of Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, the Uzbek regime has told the US it has six months to leave K-2.
Although both China and Russia were uncomfortable with US presence there and Putin likely put pressure on Karimov to expel the American soldiers, it seems as though recent squabbles over the authoritarian Uzbek leader Islam Karimov caused the ejection. In May a government crackdown on an opposition protest in Andijan sparked international controversy over the firmly anti-democratic position of Karimov. Coming off of successful post-Soviet democratic protest movements in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, the Uzbek crackdowns were especially disheartening.
The US is scheduled to hold diplomatic talks with the Uzbek government within the next few days about Andijan, political liberties and democratic reforms. Additionally, several hundred refugees from the Andijan crackdown were airlifted from Kyrgyzstan to Romania under UN auspices. The various pressures on human rights issues likely contributed to the pullout order, in addition to Moscow's urging. Of course, Tashkent was (and still is, to some degree) pursuing closer relations to Washington as a counter-balance to Moscow in the first place, so Putin's requests for emptying K-2 were very likely not a primary motivation here.
This is actually good news. Before Rumsfeld and others in the Administration were trying to hold back criticism of the Uzbeks over Andijan because K-2 was such a valuable strategic resource. Now that the Uzbeks have pushed the US out, the decision is moot and there's no more K-2 to lose; we can push the Uzbeks on what is an atrocious record of stomping on liberties and they have no base to hold over us.
My suggestion would be to locate democrats and reformers in Uzbekistan that would be qualified to run a transitional or successor government without resorting to authoritarianism themselves. These democrats could then be supported through demonstrations and rallies, as happened in the Ukraine and elsewhere.
Karimov made our decision for us. We have no pragmatic reasons to get in the way of doing what we ought to do: oppose this authoritarian's abuse of power.
Alogogenesis
by neolibertarian
Kids across the country learn about Louis Pasteur and his work on abiogenesis, otherwise known as spontaneous generation. Although his rabies vaccine is simple to remember, it's his work with germs that led to his immortalization as the process that makes milk drinkable - Pasteurization. His study of germs disproved one of the common misconceptions among doctors, scientists and learned experts of his time. They believed you could get something from nothing.
Specifically, they thought that bacterial growths were generated out of nothing, and that a covered broth would spawn bacteria or insects. Various intelligent doctors helped disprove the various forms of spontaneous generation theory, but Pasteur's work is most often credited with the accomplishment,especially as applied to unseen microscopic creatures like germs. These experts showed that you cannot start with a boiled broth and end up with a germ-laden broth sample without unfiltered access to the open air; they showed that you can't get something from nothing. This is the principle of omne vivum ex ovo - 'all life from egg.'
Abiogenesis was disproven because it takes the building blocks of life to produce life. Unfortunately, the equivalent for diplomacy and trade policy has not yet been fully accepted. Many discussions of foreign policy do not accept the premise that it takes the building blocks of freedom and democracy to produce them.
When we look at the crimes committed by various governments around the world, we should react with outrage and look for ways to express our anger, ways to alleviate the suffering these policies have caused. Unfortunately, the natural human instinct to do the former often overrides the much more pressing issue of the latter; we get so caught up showing our anger that we suggest reactions that often are not effective solutions or are even detrimental to solving the situation.
The trade embargo and its various manifestations is primarily my focus here. It may feel satisfying to punish a government by denying their country access to American goods and consumers, but does it do anything substantive? The Cuban embargo is embarrassingly ineffective at removing the tyrant Castro from power. If anything, we solidify his grip by isolating his people from American citizens, money and ideas.
Dictators, rather than running from openness, thrive on isolation, alienation and control. They go to great lengths to keep media, businesses and foreigners away from areas they want to control. They can't go around killing or imprisoning everybody, especially Westerners, so they need a closed society to do a lot of the front-line work to keep control. The fewer Westerners running around taking pictures, asking questions, spreading ideas and spending money, the easier it is to tell the people lies, mistruths and deceptions. Dictators thrive on closed, backwards, isolated populations that can be manipulated more easily. It is the educated, the informed and the successful that they fear.
Rather than focusing on self-expression of our outrage through crude, inexact embargo-derived policies, the US should embrace policies that fight tyranny at the source: closed civil societies. Our hope should be to educate, inform and enrichoppressed people. Unfortunately, restricting trade tends to do the opposite on all three counts.
It's valiant and admirable to call out China for its abysmal record on Tibet or religious minorities, or to criticize other nations like Cuba or South Africa for abusing their people, but we should not use trade restriction as a policy tool.
We cannot expect a tyranny to become more open and democratic when we enact policies that will remove democratic Westerners from the country. How can the political version of abiogenesis make any sense? Illcall it alogogenesis; abiogenesis means non-life-creation and alogogenesis means non-reason-creation or non-principle-creation. Without the logic, rationale, or principles behind democracy being preached, proselytized and explained to the oppressed peoples around the world, how can we expect them to undertake democratic change?Democracy, like bacteria, will not simply develop in a vacuum, and certainly it would not be aided by a vacuum we force onto the situation.
It seems like an embargo targeted against a human rights abuser would be a valuable contribution to the cause, but the democrats in tyrannical countries need allies rather than seclusion. We need to push the cause to the people, talking about democracy, freedom, free press, free speech, free exercise, free thought. When we withdraw Americans from dictatorial nations we lessen the pressure on their contradictory systems. It would be just the solution to undertake if we wanted to protect the tyrants, because in the long run freedom begets freedom.
If we want countries to become free, we should use freedom as our weapon: free trade, free speech and free press are the arsenal we should use. We cannot build open countries from closed policies, nor expect good democrats to spontaneously generate from authoritarian nations.
A wide-open trade policy with un-free countries should be step one in pushing the contradictions within these systems; instead of sheltering them from the light of day, we should be visiting, witnessing and speaking out. Closed borders do not help the victims of foreign tyranny. We need to encourage interaction and discussion in order to fight these regimes in the war of ideas,a battle where we always have the advantage.
UPDATE: Now available on the website here under issue articles.
Anti-War Blind Cynicism
by neolibertarian
link (tip to FD)
The Buchananite faction of the libertarians have decided to attempt to cast as much doubt as possible onto any aspect of the war. Their negativity at times ignore facts and at other times is grossly overblown.
First of all, the continued argument that there was no Iraqi conenction to Al Qaeda has been disproven repeatedly by Stephen Hayes. The Baathist-Al Qaeda connection has been shown; there were multiple links between AQ and IIS operatives, including joint missions, diplomatic cooperation and even listing Osama as an IIS asset as early as 1993. It's a token of blind ignorance of the anti-war left that there was no AQ-Iraq link. The fact is that the Iraqis were linked to many terrorist groups and to many notorious terrorists, Al Qaeda included.
Second, the unabashed negativity about the prospects for democracy in Iraq are as unattractive as they are pessimistic. While it's true that the Iraqis still have a ways to go before they get a working democratic government, it's also true that the US doesn't have all the answers yet. Raimndo and Knappster criticized a number of provisions in the Iraqi bill of rights, but apparently they forgot that every one of their criticisms of the Iraqi constitution is a problem in Western democracies as well. Western governments often let 'greater good' or 'public morals' rationales disrupt individual liberties, Western courts often seal records for various reasons, and conscription and firearms licenses are pretty much the standard for democracies and non-democracies.
The problem is that even after a stunning electoral outcome that all the naysayers predicted would fail, after working out a collective government that's ethnically inclusive when all the naysayers foretold of civil war, and after the crafting of a bill of rights that's very roughly equivalent to many democracies around the world all they can complain about is the fact that it has a lot of the same problems other countries do.
They conveniently don't put any real weight on the fact that the Iraqi bill of rights repeatedly and explicitly bans all physical and mental torture. It guarantees a fully independent judiciary and the prsumption of innocence. The Iraqi bill of rights even has a guarantee of private ownership.
Of course, somebody should point out to Raimondo that his 'critique' of the Iraqi constitution is actually of the old draft, not the new one. Many of the more problematic sections were edited or removed entirely, including an anti-Israeli populist tossback.
In a wider sense, the anti-war people in general should not be so harsh and dismissive of opportunities for democracy in Iraq. Nobody should expect a perfectly functional, perfectly libertarian constitutional republic in Iraq to be established by Aprial, 2003. These things take time, especially since democracy is so foreign (thus far) to Arab political culture. Lebanon and Iraq are the two closest examples to Arab democracies (Turkey is Turkic, Israel is Jewish, Iran is Persian) and believe it or not it takes some effort to fit together old customs with new politics. We have decades and centuries of parables, cliches and traditions to back us up, from free speech and trial protections to simple adages about voting and writing your Congressman.
We've been expecting a lot from the Iraqis, and so far they've performed quite well. I realize it plays into the perfectly closed view of the world that many anti-war people have to doubt every aspect of the Iraq war but a reasonable person would have to agree that the good outweighs the bad and that the progress currently being made can be built on in the future. Or I suppose we could resort to sensory-abusive propaganda, selective evidentiary foundations and ridiculously exaggerated expectations in order to innoculate ourselves from any serious philosophical self-examination.
Never Again
by neolibertarian
I've collected together the majority of my various notes, schematics and work on an international anti-genocide coalition and put it on my website, under issue articles. It's available at these links:
If you have time, please check it out. I will probably continue to refine it and explain how it works. If I add anything it should probably be a further explanation for its need.
This is perhaps the single most important issue of this or any other day; it's the idea that justice doesn't stop at the border. It puts paid to the inherent promise of humanity that actions have consequences and that crimes have punishments. It fulfills the pledge to the victims of the Holocaust: "Never Again."
Krauthammer Editorial Puts It In Perspective
by neolibertarian
Once again, the eminent Dr. Krauthammer has a way of putting words and ideas together to give us the broad view of things without sacrificing specificity. Here's the last half of it:
When a Le Monde editorial titled "Arab Spring" acknowledges "the merit of George W. Bush," when the cover headline of London's The Independent is "Was Bush Right After All?" and when a column in Der Spiegel asks "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" you know that something radical has happened.
It is not just that the ramparts of Euro-snobbery have been breached. Iraq and, more broadly, the Bush doctrine were always more than a purely intellectual matter. The left's patronizing, quasi-colonialist view of the benighted Arabs was not just analytically incorrect. It was morally bankrupt, too.
After all, going back at least to the Spanish Civil War, the left has always prided itself on being the great international champion of freedom and human rights. And yet, when America proposed to remove the man responsible for torturing, gassing and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis, the left suddenly turned into a champion of Westphalian sovereign inviolability.
A leftist judge in Spain orders the arrest of a pathetic, near-senile Gen. Augusto Pinochet eight years after he's left office, and becomes a human rights hero — a classic example of the left morally grandstanding in the name of victims of dictatorships long gone. Yet for the victims of contemporary monsters still actively killing and oppressing — Khomeini and his successors, the Assads of Syria and, until yesterday, Hussein and his sons — nothing. No sympathy. No action. Indeed, virulent hostility to America's courageous and dangerous attempt at rescue.
The international left's concern for human rights turns out to be nothing more than a useful weapon for its anti-Americanism. Jeane Kirkpatrick pointed out this selective concern for the victims of U.S. allies (such as Chile) 25 years ago. After the Cold War, the hypocrisy continues. For which Arab people do European hearts burn? The Palestinians. Why? Because that permits the vilification of Israel — an outpost of Western democracy and, even worse, a staunch U.S. ally. Championing suffering Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese offers no such satisfaction. Hence, silence.
Until now. Now that the real Arab street has risen to claim rights that the West takes for granted, the left takes note. It is forced to acknowledge that those brutish Americans led by their simpleton cowboy might have been right. It has no choice. It is shamed. A Lebanese, amid a sea of a million other Lebanese, raises a placard reading "Thank you, George W. Bush," and all that Euro-pretense, moral and intellectual, collapses.
Well said. It is more than revealing that so many leftists clamor for human rights and international democracy but do nothing when it involves a single firearm. It's as though they expect all dictators to simply yield because we jeer at them, sneering yet impotent and afraid. Hitler, Castro, Saddam - these men see the modern Europe for what it is: unwilling to exercise force and striving desperately for peace for themselves at the expense of the lives, dignity and democracy of others.
The far left calls for the sovereignty of Iraq, as though a militaristic dictatorship engaged in genocide has even the slightest claim to legitimacy. When it comes to Saddam or Palestinian bombers the far left engages in moral equivocation - Saddam was putting down a rebellion and the Palestinians are fighting oppression. When it comes to the US convicting cop-killers like Leonard Peltier and Mumia - both convicted in a court of law, with representation and appeals - suddenly they're moral crusaders for the little guy. Oppression seems to happen more and more the closer one is to the US and Israel. Abject hypocrisy.
That's not to say there isn't a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of others. I am certainly concerned that not enough Republicans truly believe in the mission of democracy to hold Republican feet to the fire if the next GOP candidate is a little more Buchananite in orientation. It would be hypocritical of them to cheer it now but forget it all later. But what concerns me is that the far left, shrouding itself in moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, could so easily drop both of these when it comes to vicious dictators.
Would we expect dangerous criminals to simply turn themselves in because we told them they're bad? If that worked with criminals and tyrants then the entire US army and all our police forces could be replaced with a TV and radio broadcast of a grandmother wagging her finger. They just don't care - they're criminals! Of course they don't care. They didn't care about the law when they were breaking it. We cannot expect them to turn themselves in and hand over power to others just because some leftist criticized them in an attempt to be intellectually consistent.
The left doesn't care about human rights when it involves doing anything besides sending food or abortion. That's why they love the UN (soon to be renamed "Food & Abortion 'R' Us"). When it comes to destabilizing Saddam they take the opposite line - they actually repeatedly made the argument that we want it stabilized! Stabilize a dictator! Absurd. It's almost like they truly are scared.
The only reason Hitler, Himmler and the rest were stopped is because the US, the UK and the USSR had the guns and the troops to kill a gaggle of Nazis. If they hadn't been then the SS very well might have succeeded in eliminated the rest of European Jewry and the ghostly-thin, tattooed survivors of the Holocaust would be nothing but shoes for the museum. It took brute force to eject the Nazis from their place. Millions died in that effort, but it was worth it, both to end the Holocaust and to save the rest of the world from despicable Nazi dominion.
Were it not for the US attacking Saddam in 1991 and removing Saddam in 2003 then there would still be rape rooms, 8 or 9 secret police forces, disappearances, gas bombings of Kurds, and no doubt mass execution of Kuwaitis, Shi'a and others. It took force and lives to stop it. Somehow the far left doesn't see that values are not inherently enforced. They avoid the military in a throwback to the 19th century anarcho-syndicalist days when the left thought that they could bring about socialism by eliminating police and soldiers. They agree socialism is unworkable, but they're still all too wary of soldiers and cops. They seek to keep themselves pure by not associating with the soldiers of the West - yet they all too gladly cheer the military forces of rebel Palestinians, Sinhalese, Chechens and others.
Ethics and force are NOT mutually exclusive. If anything they must go together. Either we enforce minimums of ethical behavior our or criminals and tyrants will break them with impunity.
Bahraini Bloggers Free; Bahrain Starts Liberalization
by neolibertarian
link
The bloggers arrested for operating www.bahrainonline.com and for expressing unacceptable political views online have been freed. I blogged on it just a few days ago here.
In addition, Bahrain is making more accomodation for freedoms like speech and dissent.
The Gulf States are WAY beyond most of the Arab world monetarily (except Yemen, an extremely poor country when measured by GDPpc) from their oil wealth. Contrary to the perception of many, most of the oil-rich Gulf States could maintain quite high living standards wealth even if oil became worthless tomorrow. They diversified in the 1970s and 1980s and have acted to minimize any over-dependence on oil.
They have high standards of living, great wealth, skyscrapers, restaurants, Westerners, trade and commerce, Internet service providers, satellite TV, and many of the luxuries of the West. They also have, in the words of one of my college professors, "social spending that would make a Scandinavian blush." What's interesting is that their wealth has made them rather more open than other Arab countries.
What we've been seeing the last few weeks and months is happening most in the worst countries - approximately. This is not an exact line, but notice how the biggest stories happen in the worst places. Iraq is in turmoil with a horrible tyrant, untold thousands disappeared or murdered, and then elections.
Pro-Democracy Rally in Lebanon
by neolibertarian
Double The Size Of Pro-Syrian Rally
The Syrian opponents in Lebanon have come out with a mass organized protest for democracy and independence. Remember that the original protests were essentially spur-of-the-moment reactions to the assassination of pro-independence PM Rafik Hariri a few weeks ago. The resulting counter-protests by Shi'a Muslims under the auspices of Syrian-puppet gang Hezbollah were heavily organized. Now we see how the democrats in Lebanon can be strong once they put in a little organization as well: they trumped the pro-Syrian demonstration easily.
The democrats and independents are almost entirely Christian, Druze (a nominally Shi'a sect) and Sunni Muslims. The Druze fight in the Israeli army (when they live in Israel) and have struggled for some time to avoid persecution at the hands of Muslims and Christians. The autocrats and pro-Syrians are essentially Shi'a and Alawites (a small Shi'a sect and the ruling group in Syria). For an amateur overview of Islam, see my website issue article here.
Anti-Lebanese Protests and Why Democracy's Winning
by neolibertarian
Thousands of supporters of Hezbollah, the Syrian-puppet terrorist gang, counter-protested in Lebanon last week. Yesterday thousands of Palestinians protested against the Lebanese, saying that Syria should stay in Lebanon. What's interesting is not the content of the protests, but the fact that they were held at all.
Remember, Arab states do not have a strong tradition of protest except as a way to bash America and Israel or to praise their local government. That's not to say that anti-government protests never happen, but compared to many other places protests are further down the list.
The normal process for protesting your government in many of these places is to blow yourself up and try to take them with you. The fact that Hezbollah and Gaza Strippers are protesting at all is a sign that democracy is already winning in the region. They're fighting democracy on its own terms: non-violent, mass demonstrations in the street rather than bloodthirsty, suicidal bombings.
When protest comes in the form of murder, carnage and explosions it forces many democrats to use violence in response (which is often justified and even necessary) but when terrorist sympathizers are forced to respond to democrats with protest-in-kind it shows who is setting the agenda. The terrorists are losing the initiative, and we can't let up for even a second. Further protests, even under threat of bombing or injury, have to continue. We have to push them into debating on peaceful terms, rather than simply communicating through pain and death.
Hopefully, before long violence will be harder and harder to accept as Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians realize that non-violent methods are more effective and don't require the pain and sacrifice of terror.
We should be glad that groups like Hezbollah for a change are forced to mimic the tactics of their opponents instead of the other way around.
Free Markets and Democracy
by neolibertarian
In this post by the esteemed Becker he analyzes briefly the connection between economic freedom and political freedom; he correctly explains while political freedom often does not lead to greater economic freedom, economic freedom usually engenders greater political freedom. He then summarizes that the President ought to have stressed economic freedom in his second inaugural address. I absolutely agree.
Why didn't Bush do it? Partly out of time constraints, since a long-winded speech would be boring and partly because it would be seen by some in the world (the more radical right- and left-wingers) as a sell-out to much-maligned corporations. I think it was mostly because he wanted to give democracy promotion the spotlight.
I wish he could’ve included economic freedom, especially more open commerce, greater leeway for migrant workers and FTAA-style deals. It would've been very powerful if he'd mentioned FTAA because it needs a boost on the PR charts; it's currently way under the radar despite being such an ambitious and idealistic project.
I think the Free Trade Area of the Americas would've fit wonderfully under his idealist banner, because the idea of joining the hemisphere together can be pretty optimistic and idealistic. He didn't because attaching himself so deeply to specific controversial policies can have horrible consequences if they fail. He's already backing social security reform, and that's damned ambitious.
He probably wanted more attention given to democracy, and he wanted to really sell it. Trying to say too much at once makes a speech harder to swallow. He was also getting up there for a huge concept: foreign democracy breeds US security. The public isn’t used to thinking that way, and a lot of politicians need time to realize the obviousness of that truth. Trying to make dim-witted politicians swallow another big pill (free markets breed liberal democracy) would've given them an easier target and ultimately made the two concepts too difficult for people to buy.
By dropping the markets-democracy link, he ignored an important tool for foreign policy but he also made it easier for us all to understand. He's trying to shift American and global opinion to get behind democracy, not just paying lip service to the hometown government style. Trying to pin a huge issue like globalization onto it gives his opponents an easier enemy (it's a lot easier in most places to bash globalization than criticize democracy).
Now Becker is of course not the first to link markets and democracy (as he would admit). Aside from the researchers and philosophers and political scientists, Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Reagan all pushed the idea of trade and representation as cousins - and as both preconditions to security and peace.
Wilson's 14 Points don't say that trade brings peace or democracy, but he included it in his rationale for both, and made it third of the fourteen:
III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.
FDR's (and technically Churchill's) Atlantic Charter didn't make the connection either, but it was essentially a more socialist-friendly version of the 14 Points:
Fourth, [the US and UK] will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;
Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security
Reagan didn't have a grand document as such, because when the Soviets finally fell it was GHW Bush, not Reagan, in office. Maybe if the Soviets had fallen under Reagan's watch we'd have seen a more grandiose, idealistic message than Bush's neo-realist shrug. Reagan (and his SecState Shultz) did give us a good deal of argumentation for why trade and democracy worked together:
[T]he democratic revolution has been accompanied by a change in economic thinking comparable to the Newtonian revolution in physics... These democratic and free-market revolutions are really the same revolution. They are based on the vital nexus between economic and political freedom... government's attempt to encroach on that freedom--whether it be through political restrictions on the rights of assembly, speech or publications or economic repression through high taxation and excessive bureaucracy--have been the principal institutional barrier to human progress.
And also:
In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It is also in deep economic difficulty... the march of freedom and democracy... will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.
It's not wonder that the Reagan administration oversaw the first American free trade agreements - and in 1979 he talked of a NAFTA-like "North American accord" where commerce and people would move freely over between the US, Canada and Mexico. Reagan signed America's first FTA (with Israel), a framework trade agreement with Mexico, and America's second FTA (with Canada). Reagan was a pretty strong advocate of free trade and of immigration (further evidence from Cato).
The link between free trade and democracy has been made before many times over - and it needs to be made again today by President Bush.
Bahrainis Protest
by neolibertarian
link (tip to IP)
In yet another example of peaceful protest in an anti-democratic setting, a few hundred people protested in Bahrain. They pledged to protest every week until three arrested bloggers are released. The protestors cited freedom of speech as the main reason for protesting. More on it from Al Jazeera here.
The three seem to have been running a banned website, http://www.bahrainonline.org/ and were arrested for it. It's only visible to those using non-Bahraini service providers. From AJ:
Their lawyer said the three have been accused of criticising the royal family, inciting hatred of the government, spreading false news and rumours that could destabilise the nation, and violating the press code.
Here's hoping these guys get home safe. Bahrain is a Gulf state, quite wealthy and signed a Free trade Agreement with the US in September, 2004. Hopefully the Bahraini government will see that releasing these guys is the right thing to do.
What Really Fucking Pisses Me Off
by neolibertarian
I've heard it all the time in all sorts of avenues, from casual family conversation to comics and the Daily Show to CNN and the British press. And it makes me mad as hell.
It's when people act as though the Bush foreign policy vision of spreading democracy and worldwide liberty were simply discovered, first as a false pretense to invade Iraq and then again in the last few months after Iraqi elections and the aftereffects. Lies, deceptions, misinformation? No; more likely stupidity, ignorance and cynicism.
Point 1: Bush's AEI speech, just prior to the invasion of Iraq on February 28th, 2003. I watched it live at the time. In it, Bush said, inter alia, the following HIGHLY relevant nugget.
A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.
I'm suddenly overcome with the need to resort to childish, outdated sports-gloating phrases. "Booyah!"
Point 2: Bush's Address to the Australian Parliament, on October 22nd, 2003, shows the continuity of the same ideals.
We seek the rise of freedom and self-government in Afghanistan and in Iraq for the benefit of their people, as an example to their neighbors, and for the security of the world...
Some are skeptical about the prospects for democracy in the Middle East, and wonder if its culture can support free institutions. In fact, freedom has always had its skeptics. Some doubted that Japan and other Asian countries could ever adopt the ways of self-government. The same doubts have been heard at various times about Germans and Africans. At the time of the Magna Carta, the English were not considered the most promising recruits for democracy. (Laughter.) And to be honest, sophisticated observers had serious reservations about the scruffy travelers who founded our two countries. (Laughter.) Every milestone of liberty was considered impossible before it was achieved. In our time, we must decide our own belief: Either freedom is the privilege of an elite few, or it is the right and capacity of all humanity. (Hear, hear.)
By serving our ideals, we also serve our interests. If the Middle East remains a place of anger and hopelessness and incitement, this world will tend toward division and chaos and violence. Only the spread of freedom and hope in the Middle East in the long-term will bring peace to that region and beyond. And the liberation of more than 50 million Iraqis and Afghans from tyranny is progress to be proud of. (Hear, hear.)
Point 3: Bush's 2003 State of the Union of January 28th does not have a wealth of information on the subject, but contains important broad overtones of the same subject.
America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)
Point 4: Bush's 2004 State of the Union of January 20th
We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again. (Applause.)
As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East.
He illustrates his point most clearly in the AEI Speech and of course in his second inaugural address. Bush has been saying it since prior to the war, and it wasn't just a sham argument. It wasn't simply pointing to rape rooms and running in headlong; it was very specific that freedom in Iraq could engender an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that democracy could bring a greater stability to the entire region. Why did Bush go down this road? Because this is exactly what Reagan was talking about when he and Shultz were talking about 'Democratic revolution' and so forth.
Reagan, June 8, 1982: Around the world today, the democratic revolution is gathering new strength...We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings... This is not cultural imperialism, it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy.
Reagan another time: Free people, where governments rest upon the consent of the governed, do not wage war on their neighbors. Free people, blessed by economic opportunity and protected by laws that respect the dignity of the individual, are not driven toward the domination of others.
Reagan's Secretary of State George Shultz: It is no accident, for example, that America's closest and most lasting relationships are its alliances with its fellow democracies. These ties with the Atlantic Community, Japan, and other democratic friends have an enduring quality precisely because they rest on a moral base, not only a base of strategic interest.
Reagan once again: True peace rests on the pillars of individual freedom, human rights, national self-determination and respect for the rule of law... Freedom and democracy are the best guarantors of peace... The rights of the individual and the rule of law are as fundamental to peace as arms control. A government which does not respect its citizens' rights and its international commitments to protect those rights is not likely to respect its other international undertakings.
This is a well-developed concept and it goes back to Kant and to President Woodrow Wilson. To think that Bush threw in human rights at the last minute as a sham excuse is a ludicrously shallow misperception.
"Freedom serves peace; the quest for peace must serve the cause of freedom." - Ronald Reagan
Global Provincialism and Democracy's Backslide
by neolibertarian
While I don't think that democratic institutions and values are in a global backslide overall, I do believe that in Russia this is certainly the case. The elections were somewhat irregular and possibly altered, the government has shut down more or less all major independent media, and Khodorovsky (a pro-western wealthy Russian banker and businessman) was arrested a year or two for criticizing the 'managed democracy' that Russia has become.
Now, remember that business with Jorg Haider, the Austrian Freedom Party and the EU boycotting Austria? He used a xenophobic term in the campaign to describe an excess of immigrants; the same term was used by Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s, so people naturally got upset. The boycott came about because the Freedom Party managed to get into the government and Haider got a spot in the Cabinet. Haider resigned, the Freedom Party stayed in-government, and the boycott ended (I believe).
Although Haider and the Freedom Party profited from fear and bigotry regarding immigrants, they 1) were elected in a free and fair election that was not questioned as fraudulent or irregular, 2) did not become the ruling or even dominant party in the Austrian government as a result of the election, and 3) didn't actually do anything more than profit from questionable campaign rhetoric. So while they weren't exactly choir boys, they hadn't yet done anything more than call upon the natural prejudices against a vulnerable minority.
Why then, has the European Union been so disinterested in Russia's recent actions? Putin was elected in questionable elections, holds an overwhelming influence over the country's political institutions, and has done a number of objectionable things (from shutting down free media and jailing opponents to leveling Grozny in Chechnya).
Now, the US has similarly been way too comfortable with Putin's embrace of false-front democracy. Of course, the US didn't boycott Haider, either. Conversely, the US is supposed to be building democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq yet a) didn't do half as much as it could've to build Russian democracy and b) is barely even glancing at the numerous authoritarian portends in Russia today.
Why is it that we want freedom and democracy sometimes, but not all the time? How is it that the EU can boycott and march and protest to block even the first signs of a Nazi resurgence in Austria but won't do the same for the repeal of free speech and free press in Russia? How is it that the US is selling democracy in some countries as a prerequisite to peace and security, but tacitly condoning its decline in Russia, the single-largest country in the world and a nuclear power?
Seems like everybody needs some brushing up on Universalism 101, and maybe a follow-up in Stoicism for Policy-Makers.
