Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
But, the main theme of working to spread freedom and democracy was good, and well-aimed, I thought. Contrary to the WaPo's take on it, I think Bush has been visibly working on some of the countries they named as being unaffected by his efforts.
Elections happened in Afghanistan, and are about to happen in Iraq. There has been pressure on the Saudis to change, and there has been some small change. I can't imagine Syria's feeling very comfortable right now. Iran is about to change (well, I thought that last year, too, but, we'll see . . .). Bush came down clearly against the anti-democratic problems in Putin's backyard. Do you think a relatively clean Palestinian election would have happened without our pressure?
In short, he spoke of a theme I like, and that he has consistently valued. People can always say well, yeah, but what about {fill in the name of some undemocratic country here}, but, progress is better than no progress, and there's visible progress. If you think people picking their own leaders is one of the very highest of values, then his theme has some resonance, and his record shows something more than just lip service to it.
|
OK, two countries where we invaded and removed undemocratic governments, and have held or are about to hold elections. An election does not a functioning democracy make, especially when the government cannot govern much of the country, so suffice it to say that the jury is still out on Afghanistan and Iraq, and that in any event there are substantial practical limitations on our ability to invade other countries in the next four years to impose freedom.
Whatever change has occurred in Saudi Arabia is "small change" indeed, and perhaps a bigger problem there is that to the extent that there is popular support for a change in the government there, that support is for a more severe form of Wahhabism, and not the sort of the democracy that we have in mind. (The Iranian Revolution had popular support.)
Syria may not be feeling comfortable, but I imagine that that's because they don't want to be invaded, and not because we have any prospect of introducing democracy.
It would be nice to think that Iran is going to change, although our sabre-rattling is unlikely to strengthen the forces of moderation and engagement with the West. Unclear to me that we are or can do much to promote constructive change in Iran if we are intent on stemming the development of nuclear weapons.
You didn't mention Pakistan, where we have let Musharraf do as he pleases and go back on his word to surrender military positions, because he helps us in the war on terror and produced a putative Al Qaeda leader during the Democratic convention.
Bush came down "clearly" on the side of democracy in the Ukraine once there was a popular movement well under way. Before that, we had spoken in favor of "stability," which means letting Russia have its way. But it makes sense to chase a bus, because sometimes you'll catch it. Our late-found commitment to democracy in Ukraine does stand in notable contrast to our general refusal to criticize Putin as he leads Russia away from democracy. See also Uzbekistan.
Do I think a relatively clean Palestian election would have occurred without us? Yes. I think we had little to do with it, though I'm happy to be proven wrong. What, exactly, did we do?
In fact, I'll ask the same question about these other countries. Apart from Afghanistan and Iraq, what exactly have we done with regard to any of these countries to promote democracy? If this theme is the centerpiece to Bush's kick-off of his second term, what are we going to do differently now?
'Cause I think this is just lots of happy talk. I don't doubt Bush's sincerity, but so far I don't see it translated into anything, outside of Afghanistan and Iraq. And let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we would have invaded those countries but not for Afghanistan's support of Al Qaeda and Iraq's putative WMD and terrorist ties.
eta:
Quote:
Originally posted by S_A_M
One could say "rank hypocrisy", or one could say: "You have to start somewhere, and can only tackle so many projects at a time."
As for democracy promotion -- you have to count Afghanistan. The recent pressure on Ukraine over the constitutional crisis. The strong support for Palestinian elections. Our continuing support for Taiwan. That's a short list without thinking too hard. We do promote democracy.
I am most struck by the contrast between this President and his father, who was uber-competent but never seemed to show much "vision" (or wasn't able to convey it). This President strikes me as precisely the opposite.
|
I don't think it's hypocrisy. I think he sincerely believes what he says. He just doesn't seem to have found any way to translate those lofty ideals into practical action, and there are lots of practical reasons to support non-democratic regimes as we do.
I count Afghanistan. I'm less sure that it counts as a success because I'm not sure that Karzai exercises much power outside Kabul, or that he would still be in charge but not for the foreign troops there. But it counts.
Likewise, who doesn't support Palestinian elections? They happened because Arafat died. Did we actually do anything to make them a success?
On Taiwan, you are right. But the U.S. has supported Taiwan for, what, fifty years now? A cynic might suggest that we support Taiwan because to do so is consistent with our geopolitical interests in the region, checking China. I took the President's speech to be suggesting that we should support democracy not simply when it is otherwise convenient.
I have a hard time giving the President much credit for joining the rest of the West in saying the right thing about Ukraine because it came so late in the game, and because he was reacting to events there. Any U.S. President would have said what he said.
