Tuesday, January 25, 2005
The Bush Doctrine: Problems and Prospects
The Bush doctrine as developed in his Inaugural Address on January 20 was a remarkable statement of his approach to the world. In many ways it mirrored long held beliefs of Americans. But it some ways it fell short of outlining the path to a free and peaceful world that he believed he was describing.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
