From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 04:51:10 MST
Mez wrote:
> Here's the problem. If we're not committed to establishing democracy
> in Iraq, we may be content to install (or allow to come to power) a
> "friendly dictator". That serves US short term interests just fine -
> it stops Iraq from getting nukes. But in the long term, friendly
> dictators increase terrorism against the US and destabilize the
> world.
I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion, given that US support of
"friendly dictators" in South Korea, Greece, and the Philippines, among other
Cold War proxies, all lasted for several decades and in each case ended in
democracy coming to those nations through the heroic efforts of the people in
the countries involved, not through the directive of the United States. And a
nation that did reach democracy through directive, Japan, was still seen in
Cold War terms first. Our support of these regimes did not lead to lasting
and bitter hatred of the US in these countries. However, this policy did
serve both the long term and short term interests of both the United States
and the countries in question, as these countries did not fall under the
banner of communism and eventually embraced democracy.
"I could go on. Suffice it to say, US foreign policy has not been one
of encouraging the spread of democracy and capitalism to the rest of
the world. Much the opposite. I would welcome a foreign policy that
was actually consistent with the principles this country was founded
on."
This gets to the heart of my problem with your argument. To suggest that the
United States has had a foreign policy which has been "the opposite" of one
that spreads democracy and capitalism is in my view at best unfair, if not
dishonest. Especially when compared, for example, to those European nations
that now criticize and oppose the US efforts vis-a-vis Iraq. You pile on the
US decisions to support authoritarians abroad during the Cold War, without
putting those decisions in any kind of historical perspective. Where is a
nation that has a better track record? With all due respect, I don't believe
Gamal Abdel Nasser's efforts in Yemen were about bringing that country
"democracy and capitalism."
Let me say now that I believe you and I are looking toward the same thing, a
free and democratic Iraq. Our disagreement comes, it seems, in whether or not
the United States can achieve this while acting in its own interests first.
The United States interevened in Afghanistan not for the sake of the Afghani
people, but for our own defensive concerns. Nonetheless, the people of
Afghanistan have and will continue to benefit from this action.
I am of the opinion that US action in Iraq will have the same benefits for
the Iraqi people, all the while satisfying our internal interests. I am also
of the opinion, and only time will tell the validity of it, that in the
post-Soviet world, the US will be able to be more patient and allow more
democratic personalities to come to the fore. I think this has already been
seen with Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan as caretaker. This was not a luxury we
had in the Cold War world, where in most cases democracy was a foreign
concept. To sit idly by and hope that it took hold in a place like South
Korea or Greece would have meant forfeiting that nation. I cannot abide your
bashing of US decisions to support bullies and petty tyrants like Syngman
Rhee or Lon Nol. The choice was not between authoritarianism and democracy.
The choice was between authoritarianism and worse.
I for one do agree with your assertion that it will require a prolonged US
effort to see that a vibrant and free Iraq comes to pass. It is my opinion
and my hope that they will be engaged in making the process work. However,
the first steps on that road do not need to be paved with altruism.
Regards,
Max Plumm
"Americans are very interesting people. When you came here in 1945, we had
all the Communists in jail. You made us let them all out. Now you tell us to
to put them back in jail again. That's a lot of work, you know."
-Shigeru Yoshida
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 04:54:01 MST