I have always been struck by the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Growing up I wondered why we were hell bent on being antagonistic toward left wing communist or socialist dictatorships yet we were perfectly willing to jump into bed with any right wing military regime. I came to the conclusion that it was simply business interests that drove our foreign policy. It was wonderful to promote the ideals of liberty and freedom as long as it didn't interfere with corporate profits. Murder and repression were ok as long as it did not include nationalization of private property interests. Therefore Fulgencio Batiste was good however Fidel Castro was bad. Batiste is not my only example. Pinochet, Noriega, Somoza, and Marcos to name a few all managed to be worthy of our undying loyalty.
When I re-read President Bush's inaugural address my previously formulated notions got a bit of a jolt. The quote that stuck in my mind seemed to make such perfect sense to me and I sensed that the president may actually be serious in adopting this new doctrine.
" We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Followed by this: "America's vital interest's and our deepest beliefs are now one".
Could this be true? Are we to adopt a national foreign policy, which recognizes that the things we so dearly treasure yet so frequently take for granted will be our marching orders? Instead of capitalism being our proselytizing standard it now will be freedom?
Of course the realists and the naysayers were quick to respond to the idea. Dante Chinni says it's unrealistic here. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0125/p09s01-codc.html . E.J. Dionne Jr. tries to debunk the whole idea in this column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33958-2005Jan24.html.
While the pundits are quick to reject such a new found dedication to our own principles there is a whole school of thought and a good deal of empirical data that backs up the presidents position. While Natan Sharansky seems to be getting the bulk of the credit regarding the dawning of the Bush freedom doctrine it would appear that the president has been reading a lot more about this subject than just Mr. Sharansky's The Case for Democracy.
I happened to be ruminating on the idea of a community of democracies and put a few related phrases in my browser one of which was the phrase "democracy club" just to see what might I might find on the subject. Up came an interesting article by James C. Bennet in the Washington Times 6/9/2003 entitled Anglosphere: The Democracy Club http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.6.17.03.HTM which recognized our need to stay in the UN but also pointed out some obvious problems.
"We are distressed by such travesties as Libya and Syria chairing U.N. bodies on human rights and disarmament; we must endure being lectured by representatives of "national" governments that are little more than gangs of pirates who have seized the presidential palace back home; we tediously note mischievous coalitions of such kleptocracies passing one after another absurd resolution in the U.N. General Assembly".
"Although remaining in the UN we would be better served if we fostered the birth of a new group whose membership roster would be limited to countries with genuinely constitutional representative governments, accountable to their citizens, with such attributes as a fairly enforced code of laws and effective civil rights."The essence of the article is that the UN has failed to keep the peace and that a Democracy Club would be much better suited to such a task.
What piqued my interest a good deal further was that this article was located on a site operated by Professor Rudolph J.Rummel. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM
Apparently Professor Rummel has been studying the very concepts that President Bush is now espousing for the past 25 years. His basic conclusions come from his earliest works, which "to eliminate war, to restrain violence, to nurture universal peace and justice, is to foster freedom (liberal democracy)." After arriving at this conclusion he has spent the rest of his academic career researching and accumulating data to back up his assertions. The results are strikingly similar to what President Bush has laid out in his inaugural and can be read here:
Saving Lives, Enriching Life: Freedom as a Right And a Moral Good
*http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills?note15.HTM
The book details why people "who are free, do not starve, do not make war, have the least internal violence and instability and are an engine of economic growth and scientific and technological advancement". This is called "democratic peace" http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLSYS.ART.HTM
We have used aggressive force of arms to change regimes in two foreign countries. Despite talk of quagmire, colossal error and exit strategies we have only one option for redemption. We must make it our duty to repair the damage we have done and to bring to these people what we cherish most. If Professor Rummel is right it will likely have a profound effect on the region.
