Condileezza Rice, the current SecState, is two levels too high. She was out of her depth as National Security Advisor. She is even further beyond her level of ability as Secretary of State.
That's bad enough. Worse, she insists on showing just how gripless she is with respect to her current tasks. And, retrospectively, the ones with which she was previously entrusted.
Rice has an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. The article appears in the July/August 2008 edition with the title, "Rethinking the National Interest." On line it may be found at http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87401/condoleezza-rice/rethinking-the-national-interest.html.
It is both a justification and a valedictory for the palpably failed neocon ninnie idea that democracy can be imposed from without upon the Mideast and Northwest Asia. Consider Dr Rice's position: "We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq."
In principle there is nothing objectionable with the sentiment. Democracy is good--in the abstract. Also democracy has the historically demonstrated potential to lead--over time--to social and political compacts which do provide for enhanced stability, economic progress and justice, as well as greater pluralism and the acceptance of diverse points of view.
History also shows that democratic processes can (and do) lead to aggressiveness on the part of a nation state, greater economic injustice, and other icky-poo manifestations such as ethnic cleansing and religious persecution.
Beyond that, and more to the point of Dr Rice's continued espousal of the neocon line is the simple fact that history has shown far more failed attempts to impose democracy from the outside by the use of force than successes. That point seems to have eluded her completely.
"The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe."
Dr Rice's misunderstanding of history is apparent at several points in this quote. First, Germany had a robust democracy--arguably too robust--during the Weimar Republic. That's how Hitler came to power--an election. (Yes, with some backroom games played on the senile President, von Hindenberg.) Secondly, at war's end the US, the UK and France were in occupation of the Western portion of Germany, arguably the part that was most open to democracy without excess. Third, the US was no more eager to democratize occupied Germany than the other three allies. The decision was forced upon us by the political, economic and international conflict realities of the rapidly blooming Cold War.
The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East [are] linked. “As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of this transformation is being felt in the rest of the region… Our long-term partnership with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead in helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.
By this reasoning the invasion and occupation of Vera Cruz, Mexico should have resulted in a Wilsonian success at "teaching the Mexicans to elect good men." It doesn't stretch the logic of her argument to state that the US occupations of other Central American countries such as Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic should have had equally benign results. That they didn't is evident.
Now get a grip on her celebration of "our long standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf." As was laid out in a previous post, the Gulf "partners" are not democratic. Recall that Saudi Arabia ranked dead last in a rating of forty-eight members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The region is no more democratic today than it was when Saddam was blustering around in one or another of his ornate palaces.
Any way the pie is sliced, the taste is the same. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any meaningful democratic tradition. Their histories have shown no proclivity toward nor understanding of democracy as the concept has emerged over centuries of poured blood and hard fought politics in the West.
The same absence of fertile soil for the fragile roots of democracy are evident in other regions of the world. As recent events in Kenya have proved and as the ongoing crisis in Zimbabwe amplify, the mere existence of elections does not make for functioning democracy. Recent elections in South America underscore the vast gulf which exists between the simple casting of ballots and the existence of democracy and its full array of accouterments.
There is no objection from the Geek to the idea of a people falling for a line of plausible election campaign pap and voting for a man such as Hugo Chavez who is an autocratic jefe grande at heart. That's one of the dangers of the form of democracy without the total substance.
What Dr Rice needs to keep in mind (or perhaps learn for the first time) is simple. Forms of government arise organically from the social, cultural and historical soil of a nation. This means in practice that outsiders can urge, nudge, hint and help in the development over time of democratic institutions and traditions. One thing they cannot do with any real hope of success is impose an alien institution by force of arms.
The neocons, whose water Dr Rice has carried for the past seven years, believed otherwise. As Dr Rice acknowledges there was never any thought of simply removing Saddam or the Taliban and allowing replacement by "another strongman." As the pre-2000 rhetoric of the Project For A New American Century made clear, our national interest would be best served by imposing democracy in the Mideast (and Northwest Asia.)
Dr Rice admits that we made "mistakes" in our handling of Iraq (and, the Geek must add, Afghanistan). She does not believe that those mistakes have done more than increase the "challenges" confronting us in fostering democracy in either of those countries.
In taking this position Dr Rice continues to carry the neocon ninnie water bucket. Invading Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and (hopefully) remove al-Qaeda as a threat were justifiable. The invasion of Iraq was not.
Saddam was a thoroughly unpleasant person. That was not reason enough to invade. The consequences of the invasion were not thought through as the Geek has demonstrated in many previous posts. The consequences are being made worse by the current negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement. They are being made worse by the continued sequelae of our "mistakes."
Dr Rice cannot acknowledge this far from halcyon reality. She must not. She owes her current status to her loyalty to the boss, the Decider Guy. For seven years she has carried water that should have been poured to the ground. For seven years she has tried mightily to justify the unjustifiable. For seven years she has stood at the center of the greatest foreign policy debacle in American history.
She can do it for a few more months. Perhaps there is another promotion in the offing.
No comments:
Post a Comment