The ideas about how "international law"--taken as a set of agreements about respective territories made by whatever people manage to exercise a near-monopoly of force in different regions of the world--is outmoded are good ones. The idea that the United Nations (understood as the near-consensus of the *democratic* governments of the world) should guarantee to each other nation a republican form of government is one whose time has come. But how to get from where we are to a world of perpetual peace and freedom? I think that working to strengthen the Concert of the Atlantic is a much better idea than an American Crusade for Worldwide Democracy.
But let me turn the microphone over to Robert Waldmann:
Posted by DeLong at April 17, 2003 10:32 AM | TrackBackRobert's Random Thoughts: ...I was suddenly attracted to the idea of abandoning all existing international law. I thought it might be a good idea to ignore the parts of the the UN charter (which I haven't read) which recognise or establish the sovereign authority of governments--including unelected governments--and declares that international boundaries must not be crossed in arms except in self defence or by invitation. I thought it might be a good idea to finally abandon the idea of a world order based on the balance of power, bury Metternich (who is so important that Microsoft Word recognises his name as correctly spelled), and tear up the treaty of Westphalia--no more cuius regio eius religio. War is never good, but with smart bombs we don't have to accept the authority of princes to decide what is to be considered true in their realms. We now can spread the One True Faith of democracy in a new Crusade--a new Jihad.
That is, why doesn't the USA declare that it will base its foreign policy on the view that governments derive their just powers from the suffrage of the governed, that the USA will no longer take into consideration the absurd claims to sovereign authority of unelected individuals or groups? That all countries must hold elections (counting dangling but not pregnant chads). That if any group with de facto power in a country (calling themselves a government or state or the finger of god or whatever) blocks such elections, the US armed forces might be sent to impose and supervise the electoral process. That, in the unfortunate event that some undemocratic pseudo-rulers resist the new democratic order, the president of the USA will pick the name of their country out of a hat and order the US armed forces to invade that country. That this is it: the game is over. No one is going to get away with pretending that they have sovereign authority--without being elected by a majority vote.
I thought that maybe the 8th of April 2003 could be the turning point of history. The day when the USA, the first functioning democracy larger than a canton or city state, would decide to use it?s hyper power and amazing technology to abolish the pretense of nondemocratic governments to sovereignty.
Well as you can see not only did I lose my grasp on my world view, I came close to losing my sanity.
For those who find the above paragraphs perhaps a bit frightening, I would like to stress that I am letting my imagination run wild in a mix of memory and fantasy. My period as a neo-neo-conservative idealistic super hawk lasted only for seconds. I will never be in a position of power. If I were, I wouldn?t have the guts to start a war. Still it was a disturbing experience for me personally--and this is my Blog.
Frankly, keeping the focus on me, I attempt to name my feelings. I personally felt paradigm shift.
I also felt horror--horror at the suffering caused by the war (for me symbolised by the case of Ali the 12 year old who lost both parents and both arms), and horror at the description of the regimes torture chambers. I felt guilt because I opposed the invasion and guilt because some of my fellow Americans made an (amazingly small) number of mistakes with powerful bombs and caused suffering which is immense except by the horrible standards of war (I hope no one finds out if the mistakes were made by pilots or by the workers who miss-assembled smart bombs). But I also felt the Euphoria of sudden liberation. It is, I think, a symptom of revolution (a syndrome which is highly infectious).
As, I think, has been the case in all revolutions so far, the euphoria did not last. In the case of Iraq, the hangover arrived in no more than two days. Now I knew that many Iraqis expected looting in the period of power vacuum. I expected that there would be looting. I did not imagine that people would smash statues which had survived 5,000 years, or that people would loot hospitals overwhelmed by people injured in the war and working without running water.
By now I am about back to where I was before the war. Again, I think that people dancing in the street at the fall of a dictator is a sign of danger ahead. Like countries in the middle of a revolution, Iraq is dancing on the edge of a cliff in a time of great promise and danger. Does my flinching at the danger of a revolution make me a conservative or even a reactionary?
The point of the above paragraph (assuming it has one) is that I can argue that the last month in Iraq might lead to a disaster for Iraq. That the outcome might be even worse than Saddam Hussein?s repression. I can argue that the invasion might be the road to hell paved with (in part) good intentions (maybe one cobble stone for every 10 of power lust and political calculation, which is a better than average proportion for political decisions). I will not bother, because everyone recognises the dangers facing Iraq, and especially because might is a mighty word--that is, it is always very easy to argue that something *might* happen, so why bother?...
If there is to be a new Age of Democracy, the US must be willing to do more than send in troops. The global institutions for such an Age must be democratic or consensual. To that end, preserving NATO and the UN are essential - the former as a democrats' club, the later as a world forum because eventually even the veto-wielding Chinese will be democrats.
The US must be willing to lead by example, not just by overthrowing authoritarians, but also by strengthening the economic and social conditions for growth and democracy in the developing world. That means fighting AIDS in Africa and opening domestic markets to developing country textiles and agricultural products, as well as countless other measures. Sadly, this Administration has yet to realize that lasting gains will require more than guns.
Posted by: Ethan on April 17, 2003 11:42 AMIs the American obsession with democracy yet another manifestation of the failing of their school system?
As a foreigner learning about American government, it was drummed into me that the most significant thing about the US political system is the ways in which it is NOT a democracy; in particular the ways in which the constitution and bill-of-rights place limits on the extent to which the majority can tyrannize minorities, and the ways in which a hysteresis in the system prevents rapid (and thus emotional and poorly thought out changes) in response to immediate conditions.
If America were to sign up for a flavor of democracy that insisted on these sorts of guarantees, it might be more successful. But to insist on one-man one-vote (and nothing more) in places where groups have a long history of hating each other is simply a recipe for disaster as the last 30 or 40 years of African history have shown us.
Posted by: Maynard Handley on April 17, 2003 01:43 PM"Is the American obsession with democracy yet another manifestation of the failing of their school system?"
"As a foreigner learning about American government, it was drummed into me that the most significant thing about the US political system is the ways in which it is NOT a democracy; in particular the ways in which the constitution and bill-of-rights place limits on the extent to which the majority can tyrannize minorities, and the ways in which a hysteresis in the system prevents rapid (and thus emotional and poorly thought out changes) in response to immediate conditions."
Well, since you put it so well, I'd say the answer is "YES!"
The strength of U.S. government is NOT that it's a democracy. It's that it is a free republic, based on democracy.
"If America were to sign up for a flavor of democracy that insisted on these sorts of guarantees, it might be more successful. But to insist on one-man one-vote (and nothing more) in places where groups have a long history of hating each other is simply a recipe for disaster as the last 30 or 40 years of African history have shown us."
Yes, democracy is one thing. Freedom, restrained only by not hurting or defrauding others, is much better.
Based on comments by Fareed ZakariSoukari (extremely well-spoken chap...I think I understood him to be a Muslim, born in India, now living in the U.S.), I plan to get his new book, "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy, at Home and Abroad."
I think his book makes the exact point you just made: democracy isn't such a swell thing, when it involves a majority tyrannizing the minority. Which could easily happen with the Shiites and the Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, and Turkamen in Iraq. If those minorities don't have freedom, democracy will be no blessing in Iraq.
Posted by: Mark Bahner on April 17, 2003 03:13 PMThe idea that international law doesn't work might sound grand but outside of the US it doesn't have too many fans. Calls for an end of a UN-style system of interactions between countries might sound appealing for the US but things are sure to backfire quite massively soon enough.
It's quite absurd to claim the US was behaving like a good democracy when it invaded Iraq - given the fact that it couldn't even muster a simple democratic majority in the Security Council - even if you ignore the somewhat grotesque history of the Security Council for a while. From outside of the borders of the US the invasion basically does not look like spreading democracy and the US will have to deal with that fact. That's what a democracy should teach you in the first place, namely to listen to people who *disagree* with you. You have tolisten to them which doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But at least you have to take them seriously instead of simply questioning their motives. Currently, the US' deficit in that aspect dwarfs even the economical ones. If all you do with dissenters is to shout them down or, if they live abroad, to boycott them then you'rer abandoning your democratic ideals and you're adopting new ones which do *not* put you into the most desirable company. If you confuse strength of your military power with the strength of your argument then you might find that lots and lots of people suddenly don't find you very good company any longer.
In addition, I find discussions about whether certain countries are ripe for democracy or not pretty disgusting. It's very hard not to see some kind of racism behind that - did anyone seriously question the ability of, say, the Ukrainians to set up a democratic regime despite the fact that in their history democracy was pretty much non-existing? I've read many comments by neo-cons who openly admit they think Arabs are too stupid for democracy.
One must be very careful to separate the issues here - namely making sure that minorities get appropriate representation - from weird ideas of who can have a democratic country and who not. On top of that, if there's any kind of political system which openly admits the fact that it's not perfect it's democracy. Democracy has its appeal to the peoples of the world but exporting it using violence certainly is the worst possible approach especially if economical interests are so openly tied to it. And the world will be watching. If the US turns Iraq into a larger version of Israel's occupied territories - the likeliest option so far - the costs will be huge.
Posted by: JMC on April 17, 2003 05:42 PM"That is, why doesn't the USA declare that it will base its foreign policy on the view that governments derive their just powers from the suffrage of the governed". Shouldn't that read, "with the consent of the US"? Or do you seriously expect the US to permit a democratic Iraqi regime that disagrees with them, and sells its oil to France and Russia, for instance?
And that is where this whole argument falls to the ground. I'd go on more about the numerous outrageous claims and assumptions this piece makes, but I'll limit myself to echoing his call for an end to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) - yes, yes, and down with the Synod of Whitby while we're at it!
Anybody remember Pascal's Wager? For those who don't know it, Louise Pascal argued that it was a good idea to be religious, and brought out a 2x2 diagram to explain it. On one side, either you worshipped God, or you did not. On the other side, either God exists, or He does not. Since the reward of worshipping if God exists outweighs the value of the other cells in the matrix, Pascal argued that "wagering for God" was the best choice.
The objection is simple.
"Which God?"
The objection here is simple too.
"Whose democracy"?
Many Canadians, Britons, and Australians, Bradford, would be deeply offended at your suggestion that Republican forms of government are the only legitimate ones, as there's no legitimate reason for supposing that they're any better than a constitutional monarchy (and a surprising number of reasons why they aren't).
Even if you limited it to Republics, though, which one? The American system contains elements that are entirely undemocratic, but for good reason. Would they be justification for invasion of the U.S. by some other power that thought that the Senate disenfranchised some Americans to an unacceptable extent? Would they be right? How many would die before the conflict was resolved?
Westphalia happened because Europe finally realized that there was no use in one people trying to impose a religion on another. Governmental systems aren't much different, as the continuity between "which God" and "which democracy" demonstrates. The Thirty Years' War is not something that we ever want to repeat.
Posted by: Demosthenes on April 17, 2003 06:27 PM>>did anyone seriously question the ability of, say, the Ukrainians to set up a democratic regime despite the fact that in their history democracy was pretty much non-existing?<<
Yes. A huge number of people did.
Posted by: Brad DeLong on April 17, 2003 10:18 PM"why doesn't the USA declare that it will base its foreign policy on the view that governments derive their just powers from the suffrage of the governed, that the USA will no longer take into consideration the absurd claims to sovereign authority of unelected individuals or groups?"
Well, if such a declaration were made today, one would point to the absurd claims to sovereign authority wielded by the Supreme Court of the United States (nine unelected individuals) in 2000.
In short, the US should attend to its own widening democratic gap before making it into a surrogate for international law.
Posted by: nick sweeney on April 18, 2003 12:05 AMAnd weren't the people ceptical of Ukrainian democracy right to be?
Posted by: Andrew Brown on April 18, 2003 03:49 AMEthan wrote:
>If there is to be a new Age of Democracy, the US must be willing to do more than send in troops.
>...
>The US must be willing to lead by example, not just...
I ask, why?
Ethan seems to be claiming some sort of logical necessity. Is it not at least plausible that some international division of labor could work? Imagine, the US overthrows on occassion the easier-to-overthrow of the extremely non-democtractic regimes, and initializes democractic structures. Lots of other things are needed over time, which are generally provided by other countries/institutions. Why can't this alternative model work?
(That Ethan's approach would be better may be true, but that is a different argument.)
Posted by: Tom on April 18, 2003 01:54 PMFurther to Brad's response to JMC: JMC raised the Ukraine, but it is just one among many. Russia is another good example - lots of people also doubt Russia's ability to practice real democracy. Seems to me that anyone who insists on smelling racism in disagreement (that is now a familiar trick - call anyone who disagrees about war treasonous, anyone who disagrees about imposing democracy racist) has to slice the baloney pretty thinly. These same questions were raised about much of Eastern Europe. In those cases, it was pretty easy to make an argument about traditions and institutions, pretty hard to make an argument based on race (unless one is quite ignorant of human patterns of migration). Racism is a mighty convenient "shut up". I wonder whether many of those who fall back on it in the argument over democratizing Iraq realize it was spoon fed to them by the same people who manufacture "shut up" strategies for lots of issues.
Posted by: K Harris on April 21, 2003 07:32 AM"I find discussions about whether certain countries are ripe for democracy or not pretty disgusting"
Not wishing to be disgusting but ardently desiring to know whether certain countries are ripe democracy, I would appreciate it greatly if you can instruct me on a way of accomplishing this without discussions.
Posted by: Daniel Lam on April 21, 2003 11:17 AM