http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=865429 I would like to take a brief respite from Bush-bashing to say that I was very impressed when I read this from Rice's speech in Egypt today: "For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," she said. "Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspiration of all people." Time will tell if this isn't just more rhetoric- but I found it significant to admit in a speech that the US has always sought stability (i.e. propping, supporting and arming dictators) in the ME for a long time and that it was the wrong thing to do. I agree with the idea of pressuring dictatorships and theocracies towards democracy. It would be easier to do if one could lead by example.
The idea is great. I just wish we could practice what we preached. It is a good thing to admit that our friends weren't always champions of democracy, but it wasn't really a secret.
That’s an interesting statement to be sure. It’s one to bookmark, but unfortunately I think that this administration’s credibility is so compromised that nothing they say will or should be believed anymore. But even empty statements can take root if they have a resonance with the general public. Even if it’s not sincere on the part of this administration the public can pick up on statements like this and hold on to them, effectively forcing future administrations to adopt them. In other words, they can help to push public opinion past a tipping point leading to a new level of awareness that any party that aspired to power would have to acknowledge.
Does democratization warrant military conquest by a foreign power? I suppose that is the moral dilemma. Democratic nations may tend to be more pacifist in nature. But I wonder if that is a by-product of wealth rather than actual democracy.
Langal good post! Democracy by its very nature can't be forced on people by the barrel of a gun. I think that has been one of the main arguments against the war by the lunatic fringe from the beginning. And I agree with blade.
I heard a similar comment from Rice recently. I can't quote but it something to this affect: "I have heard a lot of criticisms of America that we are trying to force democracy down their throats. I would argue it is just the opposite, it was the dictorships that were forced down your throat." Well, that sounds powerful. But I wonder if she ever bothered to think that through. If the people under the previous dictorship are making such complaints...what does that say about democracy vs dictatorships? It's just more rhetoric to try to find a moral high-ground within this complete mess.
The end will or will not justify the means. If Iraq emerges from this mess as a shining beacon of light in a few years, then I suppose the pro-war crowd will claim that it was all "worth it" - that force is justified if the ends are just and actually attained. If the current quagmire continues, the anti-war crowd can claim that force is never justified in such endeavors. Kerry tried to walk this fine line of moral reasoning and got slammed for it. As a conservative, I do not think the war was worth it. When I had thought that WMD's were the main issue - I halfheartedly supported the war. It turns out that I was wrong. I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me. Democratization was supposed to be a by-product of the chief goal of disarming a tyrant.
Langal, It is refreshing to hear a conservative admit it didn't go as well as planned. I agree that we'll need to look back up 15 years to evaluate how it went. But it won't be as clear as whether democracy took form or not. We'll also need to look at the complete road it took to get there. If 100,000 people end up dying in the process, was it worth it? Time will tell.
It would've helped if America wasn't entangled in Cold War doctrine that caused the Vietnam War. The drain upon our nation diverted our attention to the Mideast and entrenched our relationship with Israel and the oil barons. Imagine if we had a bigger response to the airplane highjackings or a larger involvement in the international peace process. A stronger economy could've withstood the oil crisis and worldwide recession. Similarly we're doing the same thing, devoting our resources to a miscalculated war while ignoring other worldwide issues such as Africa, authoritarianism in the Mideast, the N. Korea problem and the resurgence of Communism in Russia. Despite that, most will settle for a noticable collapse in terrorism in 20 years.
Well the lapsed time turned out to be pretty short, before the rhetoric was exposed. Condi went silent on women's rights issue during her most recent trip in the Middle East. Asked why she had "very pointedly" declined to take a public position on the issue of Saudi women, she replied, "It's just a line I've not wanted to cross." This, of course, prompted complaints from human rights activists, who pointed out the overlook of human rights abuses (women's rights in particular) in Saudi, coupled with the focus on Iran's human rights violations by US, signifies its stragetic interests far outweighs its newly proclaimed determination for democracy in the region. So there you go again. (link)
Rice should take her love for democracy and move to Egypt. That way, her opinion would count as an Egyptian citizen. If not, she just comes against as another stupid American bully, who likes to force his/her ideas on the rest of the world. You go girl.
Isn't the nature of her remark that it not need be forced on people because they naturally long for it. The gun barrell is foreced at the crooks who impose their will on the powerless population-- and the population is powerless without a democratic form of government.
COLOR=Navy]lead by example.[/COLOR] I don't think you can over estimate this point. If indeed we are the light of democracy we must act accordingly. We must be the ideal to which all other countries strive. Not hold captives indefinitely and mistreat them. That is makes us seem hypocritical and untrustworthy. "For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither This is very true. But the Bush admin. is very, and I would say way to tight, with the Saudi regime. So how can we possibly be promoting democracy in Saudi when this admin. is so close to this regime? A regime, which lets anti-American sentiment go unchecked and is one of the most repressive in the Middle East. They do it for oil. Iraq is about oil. We need to lead through action not rhetoric.
I myself think Langal's point is actually the truer conservative view than than the neo conservative view espoused by posters like Giddyup and Basso. If anything their view and Rice's statement is the rehashed liberal view of Wilson and even Carter. This whole idea that the US needs to use its power to support freedom and democracy even at the point of a gun is the exact kind of foreign entanglement and intervention that many President's from Washington and Jefferson up to Eisenhower have warned against. Its essentially advocating a Pax Americana where the US throws its power behind a narrow range of values. While the Pax Romanica endured for a thousand years Rome still had many enemies. Enemies who even benefitted greatly under Roman rule. The difference was that the Picts, Gauls, Scythians and Jews at Masada didn't have access to the type of tools that Al Qaeda, Iran or North Korea have now to seriously f*ck things up for us. It doesn't matter whether people inherently like democracy because people inherently don't like it when someone else comes over and tells them what to do. Trying to force democracy on people isn't just a matter of once we overthrow the crooks then the common people will love us because most of the time the common people will soon come to hate us as foreign carpetbaggers telling them what to do. Sorry for going so long about this but rhetoric like this just strikes me as being so arrogant, misunderstanding of human nature and plain dangerous for the US in the long run. Its exaclty the kind of things that liberals are rightfully criticized for believing that somehow their own moral view is so superior that it needs to be forced onto others.
