Foreign Policy towards non-democratic countries.

"I like the new world and new rules better, and the cries of 'national security' now cannot trump the principled ideological stands the West should now be taking."

=> R7, you may like the new world but are still thinking in the ways of the old, as your words show. You're still inconsciously thinking in terms that point out that the "West" is good and that any country not following "Western lead" is on the wrong track. Call the "wrong form of government" an Autocracy or a Theocracy or a Monarchy instead of calling it a Popular Republic if you like, but you're still thinking along the same lines and dismissing the fact that the government form you want to replace might very well be that which is best adapted to run other countries. Take a peek at the history of former Yugoslavia and see how it has fared in the last 20 years, and tell me if it fared best under Communism or since they experience Democracy.

 

I believe that governments giving liberties and the ability to pursue happiness to its citizens will fare best in the long run. Individual examples can be misleading due to corruption, external elements, etc.

Switching directly from a fuedal government to a mature representative democracy will not work, as we know. There is no excuse not to constantly be in a process of liberalizing, though; China is a good example of this: for all of their repression of various religious and political groups, they have granted more rights to their citiznes and modernized over the past decade. And the US and West should promote and encourage and nurture these changes.

I am rejecting the 'no one government type is better than the other' argument. Explicitly.

 

Nor am I pushing it. It all depends on the circumstances. The way the Chinese are going is the right way to evolve, and it'll probably lead to a sort of Perestroika that'll in turn finally allow for an actual change in regime. It works for China now, but it may not work elsewhere with a different set of circumstances.

 

You are fiscally clueless.

Apparently, so is CNN:

Through the first 11 months of the budget year, government revenue totaled $1.661 trillion, down 9.4 percent from the same period a year ago. The government's major revenue channels, individual and corporate income taxes, have both fallen sharply. Personal income tax collections have dipped by 16 percent while business taxes have dropped by 18.4 percent.

Federal spending has increased at the same time, rising 6.9 percent to $1.861 trillion through August. Defense spending accounted for much of that, increasing by $38.67 billion compared with the same 11-month period ending in August 2001.

While I concede that the war is not the sole reason for the deficit, it is a major contributor this year.

 

Yes, they are. Or partisan. Whichever.

Revenue is down $156 Billion, and spending up $120 million. That is a $270 Billion dollar difference, of which $39 Billion is military spending. 14%.

So, you can understand why I find your portrayal of the 'War on Terror' bankrupting America to be an overstatement.

 

So if the government is "living beyond its means" (they expect to continue deficit spending throughout 2003 at least), how do you propose the United States to acquire the funding for a global war?

After all, that is what you are suggesting, right? That the United States rid the globe of dictators and totalitarianism. Or did I misunderstand the argument here?

 

Hahahaah. No, I have never said that I want the US to go on a global war and wipe all dictators off the map. Stop being silly and overstating the case.

I am merely saying that the US should start reevaluating some of the dictators is supports. And stating that the US can afford to pay the bill for the World's security, as it has done over the past 10 years. These are not vast sums we are talking about; military spending is less than half the percentage of GDP it was during the Cold War. We shouldn't even come close to that number again, and still be able to maintain our armed forces and sustain military involvement where necessary.

 

Sorry, confused your statements with Jediflyer at the top of the thread.

maintain our armed forces and sustain military involvement where necessary.

How is this not a view of world domination?

 

Guys, this is exactly how I feel on the subject. I think Mr. Friedman from the New York Times, who has studied, written books about and reported on the middle east for 2 decades knows of what he speaks. I wouldn't normally copy like this, but it is exactly my view, and I could not say it any better than he. PLEASE READ, ESP THOSE WHO DON'T FEEL DEMOCRACY IS NECESSARY------->

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED THE PAST WEEK:

Iraq, Upside Down
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Recently, I've had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here's what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Don't believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It's just not true.

It's also not true that the public is solidly against taking on Saddam Hussein. What is true is that most Americans are perplexed. The most oft-asked question I heard was some variation of: "How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I realize that he's thumbed his nose at the U.N., and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he does, couldn't we just vaporize him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there."

That's where I think most Americans are at. Deep down they believe that Saddam is "deterrable." That is, he does not threaten the U.S. and he never has, because he has been deterred the way Russia, China and North Korea have been. He knows that if he even hints at threatening us, we will destroy him. Saddam has always been homicidal, not suicidal. Indeed, he has spent a lifetime perfecting the art of survival ? because he loves life more than he hates us.

No, what worries Americans are not the deterrables like Saddam. What worries them are the "undeterrables" ? the kind of young Arab-Muslim men who hit us on 9/11, and are still lurking. Americans would pay virtually any price to eliminate the threat from the undeterrables ? the terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives, and therefore cannot be deterred.

I share this view, which is why I think the Iraq debate is upside down. Most strategists insist that the reason we must go into Iraq ? and the only reason ? is to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, not regime change and democracy building. I disagree.

I think the chances of Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated. What terrifies me is the prospect of another 9/11 ? in my mall, in my airport or in my downtown ? triggered by angry young Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up ? namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables.

So I am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works ? a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region.

I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to democratize a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task ? if it is doable at all, and I am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it is. All I know is that it's the most important task worth doing and worth debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context ? a context now dominated by anti-democratic regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators ? are we going to break the engine that is producing one generation after another of undeterrables.

These undeterrables are young men who are full of rage, because they are raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread pov

 

I agreed with Mr. Friedman right up to the end of Paragraph 6. I strongly disagree with his evaluation of radical muslim psychology, described by him as a sort of childish jealousy. To suggest as much would be pompous and elitist.

A more realistic (in my opinion) summation of their hatred is prevalent throughout the world. They have been fed anti-US propoganda which adds to what they have seen or heard about US foreign policies. That the Us continues to stick its nose in places they feel it doesn't belong is the driving force of their hatred. Couple that with our apparent lack of morals (in their eyes), which further reduces Americans to them, and puts us on a lower pedestal, thus qualifying their hate crimes (ie suicidal terrorism).

 

Cheve--I think you are an extraordinarily intelligent man with understandable points and your heart in the right place.

But I simply don't understand how suicidal terrorism can be 'qualified', in any way. Taking a life is taking a life. I'm not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that these young Arab men don't feel they have a grievance with Israel or the West. However, neither has condoned or ordered any type of civilian execution tactics in order to progress their causes, whatever they may be. The targets are militaristic; mistakes get made, but they're also prosecuted and publicly called down.

The Arab mentality, the direct result of what Friedman spoke of in his column, has been perveted to such an extent that they cannot, through propoganda (but that propoganda is being promulgated by Arab men in corrupt power, the whole demo point) that rational, moral thought has flown completely out of the picture.

You cannot fight a war or fight an ideological/ political battle by walking into supermarkets or buses and killing innocent men, women and children. Period. I truly and deeply believe that if an enlightened and secular leader rose to power in Palestine, one who desired and could ensure peace & an end to the suicide bombings, the Israelis and their leaders would bend over backwards (and even make compromises not ever thought possible) in order for the health of their nation, their flagging economy and even more importantly, their children to be able to walk down a street or go to school and not get decapitated with shrapnel.

Suicidal terrorism cannot be qualified.

 

Thank you, padluv. I do appreciate your kind words. And I hope you understand that I am in no way condoning any action taken by terrorists or taken in the name of terrorism. In my previous statements, I intended not to validate bombings and other attacks. Rather, I was hoping to lend a little more understanding.

I'll add more later... when I'm more coherent.

 

Perhaps, for most on this thread, the most important book you could read is "The Clash of Civilisations" by Samuel P Huntington.

E_S

 

Sounds interesting, E_S. I'll have to check that out.

What I had wanted to say last night (before my vision began to blur) is that Mr. Friedman illustrates the (popular) mentality of this nation at the moment. We would rather blame the hatred against us on those feeling the hatred. Instead, I pose that we take a moment to look at why they are truly angry... angry enough to die for what they clearly see is the right path.

Summarily, Mr. Friedman says that jealousy is at the heart of this anti-West sentiment. I tend to disagree, as I have not heard a single report yet of any muslim radical decrying that America denied him(*) what he wanted. On the contrary, I've heard the angry mobs torching the American flag in a public assembly, crying out that the United States is a tyrant bent on involving itself in affairs which it does not belong. They have seen bloodshed at the hands of the US, they have seen occupation by the US military, and they have heard from their leaders that the US is biased toward nations who possess wealth and/or resources. In addition, their way of life is (in some cases) far different than that of ours. Capitalism is seen by some as "evil", because it promotes narcissism, greed, and power over those less fortunate. While leaders such as bin Laden and Hussein fit well into this category of wealthy capitalism, their followers do not. It is from this following--who have been taught of the "evils of western capitalism"--that suicide bombers are shaped to attack US soil.

Now, back to the main topic at hand... these terrorists are only a small fraction of the world populace. These countries are only a fraction of the non-democratic nations of the world.

You cannot force democratic ideals on nations that don't want it. This is the heart of the matter.



*(gender specific only beacause of the known majority of male terrorists--I'm aware there have been female suicide bombers in recent news)

 

Cheveyo, it was not me who was advocating military action agains all non-democratic countries. I was simply saying (or complexly saying) that we should correct our past mistakes (mainly that of interfering in other country's business due to "national interests" and greed) by refusing to recognize governments (such as Iraq) and others (even the ones we helped set up) that are run by virtual monarchs that oppress their people.

I am saying our foreing policy should be based on respect for individual people, not the people's illegimate government and certainly not on what is best for the U.S. economy.

 

Sorry, 'flyer. Thanks for clarifying. I somehow got sidetracked on this whole debate. It was posted at the top of the first page by padluv: ...However, in times of crisis like the one we're in presently, we have to at least try to find a way to spur democracy in these countries. If that means parlaimentary, fine.

I must misinterpreted the use of "spur".

I think this is where my mind went astray into thinking this was about "eliminating" dictatorships. But alas, this is about "not recognizing legitmacy of dictatorships".

By the by, what makes a government "legitimate"?

 

I would say a government is legitimate when it derives its power from the people.

 

i agree, jedi. That's my definition of a legitimate govt.

Cheve--i think what you stated is true, that of the motives of the young Arab. But i still take Friedman's point that for any hope to be found in that region, democratic ideals and human rights must be instilled as best the west can. It's too late not to 'be involved'. now we must do what is the best option, and that is bringing democracy and captialism to the area. I feel globalization hastens both.

They may hate it, but it's a pandora's box. There's no going back to a Middle East oblivious to the western ideals, culture and money.

 

Who says that only legitimate governments derive power from the people? Its quite arrogant to think that the "free world" knows what's best for the rest of the world.

 

Then we must agree to disagree. Nothing can change my view that enforcing democracy globally is a terrible thing. I believe that enforcing democracy in the world contradicts the very definition of democracy, as we would be forcing our opinions, policies, and political systems upon those who have not asked for intervention. This view is commonly referred to as American Imperialism.

I understand your viewpoints, padluv and jediflyer, and I respect your intent to explain them. I must, however, disagree with every ounce of my being. Nothing about this feels right to me. Fortunately for me, the "Democratic World" does not unanimously share your viewpoint at the moment.

The theory of Globalization contradicts Jediflyer's view of socio-political rejection of nation states, although I see where the outcome is meant to be the same. Where Jediflyer would have the United States deny the rights of non-democratic governments to rule, padluv's globalization rings (please correct me if I'm wrong) of US-led/-backed government overthrows. Both would lead to global destabilization at best; Worldwide resentment and threat of war at worst. I wonder how much the US can push before the world pushes back... Everyone says they wouldn't dare, that the US is too big, too mighty.

So was the Roman Empire.

Here endeth the views and opinions of moi.

 

Guys, before we go any further can we have an EXACT definition of democracy? I don't have a dictionary handy so I can't give it.

Democracy is obviously people power. But would an elected dictatorship qualify? Does a democracy have to have a seperation of powers, and if so how much of it?

I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to democratize a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task ? if it is doable at all, and I am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it is. All I know is that it's the most important task worth doing and worth debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context ? a context now dominated by anti-democratic regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators ? are we going to break the engine that is producing one generation after another of undeterrables.

These undeterrables are young men who are full of rage, because they are raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread poverty, ignorance and repression. And they are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation ? this poverty of dignity ? that drives them to suicidal revenge. The quest for dignity is a powerful force in human relations.

May I ask how Mr. Friedman knows what the "undeterrables" are thinking? Did he interview them, or is he a Jedi, or what? Mr. Friedman appears chauvinistic (sp?), in a way. Let's not forget that the "great-and-grand" American government clamped down on freedom and speech many times. That American people used hoses and dogs to suppress pro-civil rights demonstrators in the South.

JediFlyer:
I would say a government is legitimate when it derives its power from the people.

Oh? So is Taiwan (aka Republic of China) a legit gov? If so, does the US recognize it as such, and if not, why not?

Sorry, that's a lot of questions to throw your way.

 

If you wanted to use the dictionary definition then the U.S. would not be a democracy.

 

Ah, yes. That is because the United States is not a Democracy by definition. It is a Republic founded on democratic principles.

But I think that's been discussed elsewhere.

 

While this is not the dictionary definition it lists some criteria as to what is considered a democracy:

http://www.peacemagazine.org/9905/rummel.htm


"*regular elections for the most powerful government positions,
*competitive political parties,
*near universal franchise,
*secret balloting,
*and civil liberties and political rights (human rights)."

 

Who says that only legitimate governments derive power from the people? Its quite arrogant to think that the "free world" knows what's best for the rest of the world.

I am sure you would love to live in a country where power is not derived from the people. This is a typical liberal viewpoint, that of the idea that no culture is better than another. I disagree, my culture is vastly superior, and the priciple of freedom is a great one. The priciple of a military dictator looting a country for his own personal benifit is in no way a good thing. Although not every country in the world is ready for a system like America's, the priciples of democracy and freedom can be applied to any country or people in the world.