Sunday, June 20, 2004
American Responsibilities and the Promotion of Democracy
In Saturday's Op-Ed columns we find juxtaposed the priorities of ideology and responsibility. On the right side of the page, David Brooks attacks Kerry for his implicit threat to once again base American foreign policy on the realism of Bush senior and those who served him. Instead, he says we should stick to the new idealism of junior that recognizes the right of all peoples to freedom. Then on the left side of the page, we are once again treated to Kristof's reporting of the latest chapter in the tragic story of the existence of Sudan as a state. In this installment hundreds of thousands in the Darfur region are being killed or driven across its borders.
One would not want to hear Brooks tell us we will solve this latest tragedy by promoting democracy in the Sudan as we have in Iraq. The fact is there are many troubles countries in the world for which our ideology should be the last rather than the first arrow in our quiver. Sudan and North Korea and Libya, and so many other states need above all else responsible governments that can provide basic security and live by international norms. What we need now in Pakistan, and what the Pakistanis need, is not another attempt to resurrect their democratic forms. As we have found in many countries, we can work with nondemocratic leaders to achieve valuable interim goals for their peoples and for all peoples before we press on to achieve their thorough transformation. Instead of relying on ideology, we must approach each situation in its own terms. Sometimes, a determined policy for the achievement of democracy in the short term is the correct choice. Many times it will not be. We would hope that a Kerry administration might be able to make these distinctions.
In Saturday's Op-Ed columns we find juxtaposed the priorities of ideology and responsibility. On the right side of the page, David Brooks attacks Kerry for his implicit threat to once again base American foreign policy on the realism of Bush senior and those who served him. Instead, he says we should stick to the new idealism of junior that recognizes the right of all peoples to freedom. Then on the left side of the page, we are once again treated to Kristof's reporting of the latest chapter in the tragic story of the existence of Sudan as a state. In this installment hundreds of thousands in the Darfur region are being killed or driven across its borders.
One would not want to hear Brooks tell us we will solve this latest tragedy by promoting democracy in the Sudan as we have in Iraq. The fact is there are many troubles countries in the world for which our ideology should be the last rather than the first arrow in our quiver. Sudan and North Korea and Libya, and so many other states need above all else responsible governments that can provide basic security and live by international norms. What we need now in Pakistan, and what the Pakistanis need, is not another attempt to resurrect their democratic forms. As we have found in many countries, we can work with nondemocratic leaders to achieve valuable interim goals for their peoples and for all peoples before we press on to achieve their thorough transformation. Instead of relying on ideology, we must approach each situation in its own terms. Sometimes, a determined policy for the achievement of democracy in the short term is the correct choice. Many times it will not be. We would hope that a Kerry administration might be able to make these distinctions.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
