There are a few points to note.
Just a couple of years ago, the democratic impulse was cresting and two of its most inspiring products were the "Orange" revolution in Ukraine and the "Cedar" revolution in Lebanon. It is sad to see the current state of affairs in both these nations.
In Ukraine the Orange Socialist party has switched its allegience and joined with the Communists and Viktor Yanukovich’s pro-Russian Party of Regions to restore the country to essentially the same political situation as it had before the revolution. The Orange Revolution has not just over, it has been reversed, and Moscow has had a lot to do with that reversal. Read about it here.
In Lebanon the anti-Democratic Shiite militia, Hiz'bullah, despite being brought into the new democratic government, refused to disarm and, on direction from Iran and Syria, worked to provoke a military confrontation with Israel that now threatens the independence of the Lebanese state.
In both cases nascent democracies have fallen victim to the machinations of anti-democratic regional powers.
I have no clue as to how this all will turn out, but at this point it is clear that the wave of democratic reforms upon which so many pinned their hopes, is faltering.
This has led to a fascinating argument on the Corner.
Andy McCarthy starts the ball rolling by asking:
How's That Democracy Project Going? [Andy McCarthy]We've been told for some time now — against common sense and the weight of our own national experience — that the way to defeat international jihadism is to spread democracy.
He concludes:
Not bad for a conversation starter.
Responses by
John Podhoretz -- here
Basically, don't give up on democracy, it will take time, but meanwhile kill the savages.
Reply by McCarthy -- here
Basically, killing the savages is the short term project, but a long term solution requires democratization.
Rich Lowry points out that disabling Hiz'bullah actually serves the interests of democracy in Lebanon. [here]
Michael Ledeen responds that the current situation is not a failure of democracy, but a failure of the West to adequately support the democratic movements. [here]
McCarthy's response here.
Of course, this doesn't include the perspective from the left that "it's all Bush's fault."
Tigerhawk comments on the same dialogue over on his blog.
He asks, rhetorically:
1) it takes a long time
2) democracies are susceptible to coercion
3) terrorism can exist within democracies
4) democratic regimes can be anti-American
5) the path to democracy requires destabiliation of existing regimes
Still democratization is worth pursuing. Popular sovereignty is the only idea that can mobilize average Muslims to oppose the jihadis and the only alternative to it's dreams of a restored caliphate. And without the active cooperation of average Muslims, attempts to destroy the jihadis are doomed to fail.
Tom Friedman checks in on the subject in another forum, basically taking the same point of view as Michael Ledeen. His major criticism is for the Eurofools, the "moderate" Muslims, and international organizations who dither and talk instead of acting. He writes:
I would take it farther. What is at stake here is not just the fate of democracy in the Middle East, but the legitimacy of the entire liberal idea of collective security. The adamant refusal of the "international community" to take the concept seriously and its repeated demonstrations of incapacity in the face of palpable and imminent threats threaten to doom the entire century-old enterprise.
This question is taken up by George Packer in the New Yorker. He is reviewing Peter Beinart's call for Democratic Party to return to its mid-twentieth century foreign policy roots. That makes sense, he argues, only if "liberal internationalism," which is founded on the concept of collective security, can "be saved." I would disagree with most of his conclusions [which consist largely of Bush bashing], but his major point is accurate -- the current system of collective security institutions was largely the creation of the United States, and they were designed to be instruments of American power. If they are to continue to exist they will have to once again become such. Ultimately, liberal internationalism can only be sustained if the United States is willing and able to act decisively.
Read Packer's essay here.
We have to kill al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest. This is harder work than the administration's rhetoric is preparing the nation for. We are not going to democratize these savages into submission.Read it here.
Not bad for a conversation starter.
Responses by
John Podhoretz -- here
Basically, don't give up on democracy, it will take time, but meanwhile kill the savages.
Reply by McCarthy -- here
But until such time as democracies realize it is time to fight, much of what we love about democracy is tailor-made for exploitation by transnational terrorist networks. Fledgling democracies, in particular, are vulnerable here.Cliff May's response -- here
Basically, killing the savages is the short term project, but a long term solution requires democratization.
Rich Lowry points out that disabling Hiz'bullah actually serves the interests of democracy in Lebanon. [here]
Michael Ledeen responds that the current situation is not a failure of democracy, but a failure of the West to adequately support the democratic movements. [here]
McCarthy's response here.
I support democracy and freedom. I believe it should be our national policy to support those things for a host of very good reasons. None of those reasons, though, is that it is insurance against jihadism.Altogether it constitutes a nice airing of the "realist" versus "neo-conservative" dialogue that is taking place these days in Washington. Check it out.
Of course, this doesn't include the perspective from the left that "it's all Bush's fault."
Tigerhawk comments on the same dialogue over on his blog.
He asks, rhetorically:
So why should "democratization" of the Arab Muslim world be part of America's strategy for dealing with Islamic jihad? Because there needs to be an alternative to jihadism that can capture the imagination of the Arab on the street. Secular Arab nationalism and communism, which were that alternative in years past, are spent forces in the world. Popular sovereignty is all that remains.He lists the problems inherent in democratization:
1) it takes a long time
2) democracies are susceptible to coercion
3) terrorism can exist within democracies
4) democratic regimes can be anti-American
5) the path to democracy requires destabiliation of existing regimes
Still democratization is worth pursuing. Popular sovereignty is the only idea that can mobilize average Muslims to oppose the jihadis and the only alternative to it's dreams of a restored caliphate. And without the active cooperation of average Muslims, attempts to destroy the jihadis are doomed to fail.
Democracy... will not diminish either radicalism or anti-Americanism (or opposition to Israel) in the Arab Muslim world. But it will create many more active Arab and Muslim enemies of jihad. It already has, particularly in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of Arabs are now hunting Islamist terrorists every day. In this war, as in any counterinsurgency, the enemy of our enemy is definitely our friend.Interesting: read it here.
Tom Friedman checks in on the subject in another forum, basically taking the same point of view as Michael Ledeen. His major criticism is for the Eurofools, the "moderate" Muslims, and international organizations who dither and talk instead of acting. He writes:
The world needs to understand what is going on here: The little flowers of democracy that were planted in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories are being crushed by the boots of Syrian-backed Islamist militias who are desperate to keep real democracy from taking hold in this region and Iranian-backed Islamist militias desperate to keep modernism from taking hold.Read it here.
It may be the skeptics are right: Maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can't be implemented everywhere. It certainly is never going to work in the Arab-Muslim world if the United States and Britain are alone in pushing it in Iraq, if Europe dithers on the fence, if the moderate Arabs cannot come together and make a fist, and if Islamist parties are allowed to sit in governments and be treated with respect — while maintaining private armies.
I would take it farther. What is at stake here is not just the fate of democracy in the Middle East, but the legitimacy of the entire liberal idea of collective security. The adamant refusal of the "international community" to take the concept seriously and its repeated demonstrations of incapacity in the face of palpable and imminent threats threaten to doom the entire century-old enterprise.
This question is taken up by George Packer in the New Yorker. He is reviewing Peter Beinart's call for Democratic Party to return to its mid-twentieth century foreign policy roots. That makes sense, he argues, only if "liberal internationalism," which is founded on the concept of collective security, can "be saved." I would disagree with most of his conclusions [which consist largely of Bush bashing], but his major point is accurate -- the current system of collective security institutions was largely the creation of the United States, and they were designed to be instruments of American power. If they are to continue to exist they will have to once again become such. Ultimately, liberal internationalism can only be sustained if the United States is willing and able to act decisively.
Read Packer's essay here.
No comments:
Post a Comment