Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase in my title during the US civil war. He understood that freedom is not something that comes easily, but something that must be won. He also understood that that freedom is the cornerstone of western society. Freedom of thought, speech, religion, association and assembly are at core of western civilization and are non-negotiable liberties. Political freedom too, provides for a more dynamic society than does autocracy, and I think that political freedom has been indirectly responsible for much of the success of the west in the past two centuries. Our freedoms must be maintained if our society is to survive and prosper in the future.
Having said that, I want to outline some of the opinions I hold about international relations and tie them back to the central themes of this post, and the two that have come before it. I will start with a term that I am going to use, because I feel like it will need clarification as the post develops. I am going to use the phrases democracy and liberal democracy interchangeably for the purposes of this post, and use them as terms to represent the governmental structure common in the west, characterized by some form of elected representation determined by a large portion of the adult population, usually but not always a constitution, guarantees of the previously mentioned personal liberties and other protections, such as separation of powers and prevention of majority tyranny. I also want to clarify that when I talk about sacrifice, I mean necessary sacrifice. I believe that wasting people’s lives on fruitless endeavors, or not taking all possible measures to prevent civilian casualties, or any unnecessary abuse of human life, such as happened at Abu Gharib, is morally despicable and that those responsible for such actions should be punished accordingly.
With that in mind, I want to talk about the kind of world I would like to see in the somewhat distant future. The world today, at least in the west, is a far better place in terms of quality of life (on average) than at any other time in history. In understanding why this is the case, it is useful to look at the ideas in one of my favorite books, Nonzero, by Robert Wright. Wright talks about “societal evolution,” which is his theory that the behavior of civilizations approximates the long-term behavior of living organisms. This is a thesis which I find extremely persuasive. The first objective of a species is to ensure the survival of the gene pool. Similarly, the first objective of any society has to be to maintain its values, culture and system of government. As Darwin knew, not all species are equally well-equipped to survive in a given environment. Over time, the organisms that are unable to compete simply vanish. Similarly, Wright postulates that some societies are better organized for certain tasks than others, and in a given environment, weaker societies are swallowed up or replaced by more efficient ones. Wright spends a large part of his book on the theory that how well societies are able to compete depends on the level of non-zero sum interaction in a society. This is a complicated hypothesis, so I will just summarize the main conclusions. It predicts that societal evolution is a directional process, and that societies are necessarily becoming more interdependent, more complex and more specialized and that is what is responsible for the increase in quality of life. This integration is constrained by two factors, barriers in communication and barriers in trust.
The point of all this is that the future society I would like to see would be characterized by the absence of those barriers, and theoretically would then have the highest possible average quality of life. I will now discuss what I think this world would look like, but my interpretation is certainly open to refinement and debate. There would have to be some sort of global political and economic authority, but I think a “world government” per se is an impractical idea in the foreseeable future. Instead, I would advocate a global federation similar to, but with more power than, the European Union. This federation would be run by three elected bodies, one based on “power” (production capacity, economic strength etc), one based on population and one based on egalitarian national representation. For a more detailed description of how the political organization might work see my “Kingdom of Conscience” post. This federal authority would have the responsibility of maintaining a global constitution, guaranteeing uniform political and personal liberties such as those previously described, regulating the global economy by enforcing contract law and resolving economic crises (As the EU does) and providing for common global endeavors such as space exploration, global defense, peacekeeping and so on. The need to enforce a global constitution would also require a Global Supreme Court, in order to make sure that national laws do not conflict with said constitution. I know that what I have just outlined is a very idealistic vision, but I believe that it is possible, and certainly something to work toward. Much of the foreign policy that I advocate has at least an eye on that ultimate goal.
As you can see, I have started with the big picture in this post. However, a vision is nothing without more immediate and specific goals, and thus I will try to work downward, from the general to the specific. In my view there are two major factors that must be satisfied before large-scale global integration can move forward. They are related, but we must have both before we can proceed. First, conflict between nations must be resolved prior to any integration attempt. Nations that are openly hostile to one another cannot be expected to adopt common ideals and work closely together. In that light, it is extremely important to distinguish between resolving conflict and enforcing peace. Israel and the Arab states have had periods without war, but they have been engaged in a conflict since 1948. A ceasefire is not sufficient to foster interdependence, a lasting solution must be found for the problems at the core of the conflict. The second criterion has to do with establishing liberal democracy. The creators of the EU correctly determined that an integrated, democratic international body must be made up exclusively of democratic states. The political decision-making process in autocracies does not lend itself to integration, and if a global organization is looking to have a common constitution with guarantees of personal liberties, obviously member states must be able to tolerate these liberties within their countries, something that authoritarian regimes tend not to be very good at.
These two criteria are related in that the former almost always follows the establishment of the latter. Immanuel Kant wrote on this concept, which he called Republican Order, and it has since been debated and expanded by many other prominent philosophers and political scientists. Empirical evidence shows that wars between democratic states are extremely rare, and almost every example to the contrary is a case where one or both of the states had been democratic, in the modern sense, for less than five years. The evidence also shows that the incidence of civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflict is considerably lower within democratic states. In that light, it would seem that the most straightforward way of achieving the above criteria throughout the world is to support the establishment of liberal democracies at the expense of other systems of government. This goal also correlates well with Wright’s societal evolution, because logically, one of the best ways of preserving our social systems and ways of life is to propagate them as much as possible.
Of course, the next question becomes, how can we do this? For the answer to this, we can look again to history. There are three ways the system of government can be changed in a given country.
1. Peaceful, internally driven liberalization. This happened to England over a period of several hundred years and to several English colonies such as Canada, Australia and to some extent, India. It also occurred in Taiwan and Spain, among other places. This process is slowly beginning in China.
2. Revolution. This is perhaps the most common way. The populace grows discontented with authoritarian rule and collaborates to overthrow the previous government and establish democracy. This happened in the USA (1776), the USSR (1991), China (1912), much of Latin America and all over Europe, especially France, where it has happened probably five times since 1789.
3. External Force. This is the most controversial of the three ways. It involves other nations, either directly or indirectly, supporting the establishment of a democratic state through the use of force. It has been tremendously successful in several instances, Germany (1945), Japan (1946), South Korea (1952) and Israel (1948). Additionally, it has been somewhat successful in several other instances, notably in the former Yugoslavia (1990’s) and Germany (1918). However, the strategy has proven disastrous in some instances, Vietnam being the best example. The jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most recent attempts.
Each of these three approaches has its advantages and disadvantages as a way of spreading democracy throughout the world. From a purely sympathetic point of view, the first option is the best, in that it requires the least bloodshed. However it is also the most useless if one is looking at ways to propagate democracy. It is extremely difficult to influence a peaceful liberalization process from the outside, and also tends to take an extremely long time. In some cases it is not even a viable option, as the sitting government would rather face revolution than liberalize.
Choosing the right approach for fostering democracy across the world is not a simple matter of choosing the “best” of the three alternatives and then applying the strategy across the board. When we in the west are considering how best to proceed, each individual case must be carefully considered and a unique solution found. The first option, the peaceful transition option, is one that needs to be exacted in allied states that already have some characteristics of western government. This actually constitutes a large portion of non-democratic states in the world today. These countries have less distance to travel, are moving in the right direction and are not a threat to the west. Nothing would be gained by overthrowing the current regimes in these countries. Some examples might be China and Russia. Also, this tactic would be extremely useful in the aftermath of revolution or invasion for use in neighboring countries. For example, should the US succeed in the goal of establishing a strong democracy in Iraq, the peaceful transition option would become much more feasible and much more imminent in places like Saudi Arabia.
The second approach, the revolutionary approach, would also probably be the best tactic in several situations. Regimes that have radicalized and are unlikely to pursue reform, yet do not present an immediate threat to the west, would be possible candidates for this type of action. Also, states with the potential to exact heavy damage to the west in the wake of an invasion might be better dealt with through this method. North Korea is a good example, as military action could result in nuclear attack. Other possible candidates include several countries in central Asia and in Africa. In order to effectively utilize this tactic, a complicated series of procedures would have to be used. Perhaps the most effective way of inciting a population against its government is through economic means. Sanctions and incentives can be very effective. Additionally, creating international pressure against these states is a part of the strategy. Funding opposition groups is also a possibility, but great care must be taken to make sure those groups are committed to democracy. Funding groups just because they oppose your enemy is a mistake, as the Americans have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. These measures, along with others, represent perhaps our best hope for democratizing radicalized regimes.
The third approach, external military action, is the most direct of the three, but also poses the most problems. It is not the preferred strategy in most cases. However, it should not be unnecessarily ruled out, as there are cases where it is the best option. When states pose an imminent threat to the democratic world, there is often no other option but force. In the Middle East, for example, Hezbollah, though not a regime per se, exercises de facto control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is a radical organization that poses an imminent terrorist threat to democracies. That is a case where the use of force by Israel is both necessary and justified. Another example of a situation where military action could be the best course of action is a situation where it is necessary to establish a “beachhead” for democracy. In regions where democracy is not prevalent, it is often difficult to find enough internal support to pursue either a liberalizing agenda or a revolution. In this case, establishing one or two democracies through external force can be a catalyst for further democratization of the region through the first two methods. In this case, the obvious example to use is Iraq, although until a stable democracy is established it cannot be considered a success. Establishing a liberal democracy in a Muslim state could be a critical turning point in democratizing the Middle East. It would make it considerably harder for states like Iran to say that Islam and democracy are incompatible. In the best case scenario, it could cause a domino effect and substantially contribute to the rise of democracy in the rest of the region. At a minimum, it will be one less radical regime blocking the way to a peaceful and integrated world. The mismanagement of the war by the Bush administration has made the job more difficult, but the goal can certainly still be accomplished. Iraq and Afghanistan are two big opportunities to expand democracy and create change in the wider Middle East, but in order to accomplish that, we must make sure that the job is finished before we leave. The sacrifice made by those Afghanis, Iraqis and coalition troops that have lost their lives in the conflict will not be wasted if those two countries can emerge as pillars of freedom. If we retreat, however, as many in the western world have advocated, those sacrifices will have been in vain.
Speaking of those people who have advocated unconditional peace and withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to address one of their principal arguments in some detail. Many of them hold the view that given enough time, the non-democracies of the world will go through the same process that happened in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in that their populations will realize the advantages of liberalizing and pressure for change, resulting in either peaceful liberalization or revolutions. In their view, the democratic world does not need to get involved, as the process will proceed regardless. There is a major problem with this view. Non-democratic states have been forced by two factors into taking an adversarial position against the world’s democracies. They are forced to vilify us and act against us, and we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our freedoms. Acceding to their demands, (abandon Israel, close military bases, prevent corporations from exploiting energy resources etc) will not pacify them, because in order for them to remain in power, we have to be the enemy. As mentioned, this is for two reasons. First, democracy tends to spread once it is firmly established in a region. It is therefore in the interest of non-democracies to prevent the emergence of a strong democratic state in their region. In this way, the democratic states of the world are already irrevocably involved in conflict with these states, as we are the greatest threat to their power. Israel is the shining example here. The authoritarian nations of the Middle East cannot afford to let Israel become stable and powerful as it would certainly incite pressure for change in their own regimes. I also believe that a large part of the insurgency in Iraq had developed in order to prevent the emergence of a strong democracy.
The second reason is slightly more complicated. It has to do with increasing globalization, the global information revolution and the tremendous power of the world media. The crux of the matter is this. The wide availability of detailed and reliable information about the state of the world has increasingly opened the eyes of the people living in non-democratic regimes. They now, more than ever, understand what life is like in liberal democracies. They know what they are missing out on. China is the easiest place to see this, where increasing knowledge of the west had driven much of the reform over the last twenty years.
These two factors, the regional pressure for democracy and the information revolution, have forced the hand of non-democratic regimes. Faced with regional democratic pressures and wide knowledge of the better quality of life enjoyed in the west these regimes have to take action to appease their populace. They can either liberalize or radicalize. China, for example, has responded to democratic pressures by introducing limited market-oriented reforms. Iran and North Korea on the other hand, have radicalized. By portraying liberal values as incompatible with Islam (Iran) or Communist ideology (North Korea) they can provide an excuse to their population why they cannot enjoy the quality of life or the personal liberties present in democracies. In order to legitimize this excuse, these regimes must attempt to prove to their populace that the advantages of their regimes outweigh the advantages of liberal democracy. They can only do this by challenging the west, and attempting to prove themselves superior.
I do not believe that the challenges of fundamentalist Islam and North Korean communism are sufficient in themselves to threaten the western way of life. I believe that the inherent advantages of liberal democracy would eventually prevail and these regimes would collapse through revolution. However, we cannot afford to wait. The cost of waiting 50 or 100 years for those regimes to collapse will be 50 or 100 more years of state-sponsored terrorism against the west. It is even possible that those states would, facing revolution, launch nuclear attacks against us. Therefore, I think the west must do everything they can to hasten the fall of those regimes. Supporting internal revolution may be what is necessary to subdue nuclear-armed radical states, and armed conflict against other terrorist organizations should be undertaken if necessary.
Democratizing the planet, and subsequently promoting an interdependent and just world, will not be an easy task. It will require gargantuan effort, tremendous resolve, and the willingness to sacrifice. In those three things we can learn much from the people of Israel. They have sacrificed more to earn their freedom than perhaps any other nation, and their arduous task is far from over. They should be commended and supported, not bigoted. To all those who would say that the sacrifice is not worth it, and point to the suffering of those that have lost on both sides, I would reply that paradoxically, establishing a lasting peace will necessarily require war and that freedom is not free. Every citizen of earth deserves the same freedom that we in the west take for granted, and to get that they will have to win it from their oppressors. I would also comment that as in the 1930’s, when Hitler ruled Germany, we will eventually have to face those that would destroy us. As it would have been in 1936, the cost now will be less than if we wait until we are attacked. We have to learn lessons from the past. As Lincoln said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Finally, to everyone in Israel and the other free countries of the world that have lost loved ones defending freedom and democracy, I would remind you once more of the words of Abraham Lincoln, “I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic(s) they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the Altar of Freedom”.
No comments:
Post a Comment