Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I see where Democracy-minded liberal reformers in the Middle East like Bush’s scheme even less than I do,

Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for “freedom” without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be. “This a very dangerous scheme. Anarchy will be out of control,” said Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University and an advocate of gradual change.

..”We can hardly take the great risks that Dr Rice suggests. We are determined to keep domestic peace as well as external peace as far as we can, but not to the point of stifling change,” added Said, who is deputy director of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

…Helena Cobban, a writer on Middle East affairs based in the United States, said: “She (Rice) reveals a totally cavalier attitude to the whole non-trivial concept of social-political stability in Middle Eastern countries.”

“So it looks as though Arc of Instability may now actually be the goal of U.S. policy, rather than its diagnosis of an existing problem,” she added.

…Hala Mustafa, editor of the Egyptian quarterly publication Democracy Review, said reformers must have a clear agenda for where they want to go and that instant change would favor the Islamists, who dominate the political culture.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 29, 2005 10:57 AM

And to think that we have these guys making War in our Name…

Reminds me of a Blind Giant with a Hammer trying to kill a cockroach by blindly swinging everything.

An Idiot leading Sheep.

Posted by: Aldous at March 29, 2005 11:21 AM

I can’t believe you guys are lining up behind the authoritarians. Wasn’t it always the critique of the U.S. that we were supporting the dictators who were oppressing Muslims? Wasn’t it the left who said that the righteous anger of the Muslim world directed at us because of our foreign policy? Are you saying that they really do hate us because of our freedom and our only refuge is to support dictators and autocrats now and forever and that if we even begin to talk about democracy for Muslims all hell will break lose?

There is a realpolitik critique of Condi’s policy, but that is not what you guys are arguing. You just can’t accept that president Bush’s policy may work to free millions more people around the world.

So what’s is your end game strategy? Do you think the House of Saud will be able to hold onto its power unchanged forever? Do you envision a Baathists/fascist regime in Syria for the next century? Don’t you think it might be both the smart thing and the moral thing to get on the side of democracy?

What is it that you find objectionable in Condi’s statements about human rights or our commitment to democracy ?

Posted by: Jack at March 29, 2005 11:37 AM

“You just can’t accept that president Bush’s policy may work to free millions more people around the world.”

Because he lied his way into the Iraq war we simply don’t trust his motives. And because Rome wasn’t built in a day.
What this administration has been/is doing forces America to bite off more than we can chew - both in blood and in money. Why should our soldiers have to die or become disabled to free everyone in the world, and why should our tax dollars have to pay for it all simply because he can’t be bothered to learn diplomacy and try to build consensus with our allies for such sweeping goals?

BTW, another fantastic article, AP.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 29, 2005 11:55 AM

I don’t believe the Iraqi government will become a Theocracy. First, I would not trust Mubarak on this because his government, under various leaders, has treated Muslim piety fairly harshly. It’s reactionary governments like his what we have to thank for al-Qaeda and it’s subsidiary Islamic Jihad. I’m not a neocon, but I do believe that our support of non-democratic governments has played a strong role in our current predicament, and generating fear of theocracy plays into al-Qaeda’s hands.

Iraq is a fairly secular country, about forty percent of Arabs there are not that religious. those who are subscribe to a different theory of Shia religion than the Iranian Mullah’s. Theirs is something of a recent deviation from the typical hands-off approach taken by the Shiites.

What threatens the government now is the security problem. When sabotage, ambush, and banditry are a daily hazard, law and order are merely wishful thinking. Bush needs to get on that ball know before victory in this war becomes wishful thinking too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 29, 2005 12:23 PM

Jack,

What is it that you find objectionable in Condi�s statements about human rights or our commitment to democracy ?

What many of us find objectionable is her statement that fundamentalist regimes are better than authoritarian regimes. History has shown otherwise.

As much as I love living in a democracy, I realize that (a) democracy is a luxury that not all nations can afford, and (b) not everyone is ready for democracy. For democracy to work, you have to have an educated populace with its basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.) met first. Otherwise, the populace is too easily swayed by extremists to vote for what is best for them.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at March 29, 2005 12:30 PM

Did anyone else see this as ominous for the US?

For democracy to work, you have to have an educated populace with its basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.) met first. Otherwise, the populace is too easily swayed by extremists to vote for what is best for them.

The American Education System is clearly inept at educating children, we have government-sponsored propaganda polluting our media, and systems being established which violate our privacy in the name of security. How long can our democracy last?

Posted by: AParker at March 29, 2005 01:04 PM

Sorry, I forgot to warn you before that last comment to put on your tin-foil hats.

Posted by: AParker at March 29, 2005 01:06 PM

India – the world’s most populous democracy – has had it share of troubles and went through a period of dictatorship, but it overall is a success story. There is no shortage of poor people in India and the situation was even worse earlier. The education levels also are not high enough to support democracy, yet democracy is what they have.

Germany was arguably the most advanced country in the world in 1933. Its population was highly educated and cultured. This was the land of Goethe and Schiller. The “cultured and educated” Nazis played selections from Beethowen and Wagner while they wiped whole populations off the earth.

Democracy correlates with prosperity and education, but we can’t always be sure of the direction of the arrow of causality. Beyond that, modern communications are changing the world and making it more inclusive, so that even poor and ignorant people might think they have some right to determine their futures.

I have to go with Churchill on this. Democracy is the worst possible system, except for all others that have been tried from time to time.

Posted by: jack at March 29, 2005 02:18 PM

I still don’t see how we’re a democracy…

Posted by: Zeek at March 29, 2005 04:37 PM

Zeek

We are a republic, actually, most people call that a subset of democracy, although some pedantic types will quibble with the definition.

You admited that you feel relatively safe in your rights in this democracy when you wrote your last post. People who truly fear a police state don’t post things in public places where they can be traced, so don’t let your words contradict your actions and play those silly games.

Posted by: Jack at March 29, 2005 04:54 PM

I can’t believe you guys are lining up behind the authoritarians. Wasn?t it always the critique of the U.S. that we were supporting the dictators who were oppressing Muslims?

Jack, nothing is black and white. First of all, I’m just echoing what Middle East reformers have been saying for a couple years now: Bush’s Middle East policy unintentionally hurts liberal reform movements and promotes radical fundamentalism.

Second, you are absolutely right that authoritarian governments are a long-term problem that give rise to radical revolutionaries and terrorists. As I said in the article, I can’t fault Bush for the vision. The problem is how you get from an authoritarian regime to a liberal democracy.

The Bush strategy is to hold elections in these places, to open up the political process, and hope that free people make the right choice. That’s a fine idealistic notion. Unfortunately, the situation in the Middle East right now is such that people will freely choose Islamist leaders. That’s not good, and it’s something that many smart people on both sides of the aisle have been warning about for years. Based on the results of recent elections in the Middle East, it’s fact, not theory.

Jack, you mentioned E. Europe in a different thread. We’re still dealing with the fallout from the sudden collapse and instant democracy that brought us the illiberal political situations in the Balkans, in central Asia, and even in Russia - none of wich are good models of stable democracy.

You also bring up post-war Germany and Japan, and I’m glad you did. The US and our allies worked our butts off to make sure fascists and militarists could not be elected in those countries, and that’s the big problem with Bush’s strategery, and the major complaint of the liberal reformers in the Middle East: zero preparation.

Liberal democracies don’t just happen. They’re engineered. Even our founding fathers had to fight off popular attempts to make George Washington king of America.

Call me, and all like-minded political thinkers cynical or manipulative, I don’t care. The stakes are too high. You can’t just hold elections unless they’re guaranteed to produce the result we want. For the United States, elections in the Middle East cannot be an end in themselves. They have to produce a result that’s better than the authoritarian regimes they replace.

The deck must be stacked before the elections take place. That’s what the liberal reformers in the Middle East want. I’m sure that’s what the House of Saud and Mubarak want (though their reasons may differ). And that’s what Americans who want a peaceful democratic Middle East want.

You think Islamic fundamentalism - and I gave five concrete examples demonstrating that’s what’s happening - is better than authoritarianism just because it’s the result of a free election. But it’s not better, and you know it.

I can understand some of the denial. It’s hard to accept the fact that the administration ordered US forces to put the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq in charge of that country. It was unintended of course - we were backing Allawi’s secular party, which was trounced in the free elections - but it happened and needs to be dealt with. The first step should be for the administration to rethink it’s tactics.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 29, 2005 09:31 PM

I would prefer to have us “control” elections, but every election is a risk.

I also don’t think the Bush administration is saying that we need immediate free elections everywhere in the Middle East, but if you don’t mark the goal, you can’t expect to reach it. The kind of pressure the administration put on Egypt is a good example. We all understand that Mubarak will not just give up. The pressure just moved the situation in the right direction. Another good example was Bush’s refusal to deal with Arafat. That guy was the biggest single impediment to peace. No good came from pretending otherwise. In the Iraq case, which I still think is working as well as we can expect, we don’t have many options. We have what will be perceived as endless American occupation or the promise of self-determination. We don’t have the political will to stay occupiers. Even Bush doesn’t and the Democrats surely don’t. So what do we do?

The E. Europe analogy of course is imperfect, and there are problems, but generally it is better than the previous situation. Do we prefer a Russia that seems to be drifting toward authoritarianism and local politics, or that Soviet Union that was a competitor to the U.S. worldwide? Don’t forget that the terrorist movement was largely trained and supplied by the Soviets. Others were trained and supplied by us in response t the threat. The Cold War corrupted everybody (the U.S. included) and ending it was worth it.

In the Balkans, Yugoslavia was held together by Tito’s strong tyrannous hand. When he died the place came apart. Communism actually didn’t fall at that time, it just morphed into Milosevic’s tyranny. My own belief at the time and still today that it was the over eagerness of the west, especially the Germans to recognize the former Yugoslav republics WITH their former borders that was the proximate cause of the trouble. The problem certainly wasn’t democracy.

Most other parts of E. Europe are much better off. This is an area I know well (unlike the Middle East, I admit). The air and water are cleaner; people are healthier; they even smile more often. The only problem is that some people are beginning to forget the filth and oppression of communism, while remembering (falsely) the security of not having to compete.

So, I don’t think we really disagree that we should try to help the oppressive states of the Middle East to a soft landing. I don’t think we disagree that the current crop of despotisms can’t last much longer no matter what we want. I know the risks involved but I think we need to take them both because the result could be good and we don’t have much choice anyway. When you don’t have much choice, embrace the choice you have.

Also take a look at Don’t Fear the Shiites

P.S. I personally want to stand by the Kurds who stood by us and remind me of the brave E. Euros. But that is another story.

Posted by: jack at March 29, 2005 10:50 PM

Jack, I think we can agree that something needs to be done, and whatever replaces the authoritarian regimes must be better. Too bad the Bush administration - as explained by Dr. Rice - doesn’t see it the same way. She clearly said that, though fundamentalist Islamic rule is bad, it’s better than the current regimes. She is absolutely wrong. She couldn’t get any more wrong. She’s a full 180 degrees away from right.

“Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater - let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn’t as if the status quo was stable the way that it was.”

Except that the status quo has been stable for more than fifty years now. I eagerly await a clarification from McClellan or Duffy at the White House.

And I want to point out a couple false choices you presented,

Do we prefer a Russia that seems to be drifting toward authoritarianism and local politics, or that Soviet Union that was a competitor to the U.S. worldwide?

The answer is, of course, neither. Even President Reagan was working to liberalize the Soviet Union, rather than deal with the chaos of a collapsed regime, “[A] Soviet leadership devoted to improving its people’s lives, rather than expanding its armed conquests, will find a sympathetic partner in the West.” - President Ronald Reagan

Your other false choice is,

I know the risks involved but I think we need to take them both because the result could be good and we don?t have much choice anyway.

Except that we really do have a bazillion choices on how to achieve a liberal, democratic Middle East. I’m not the most imaginative person, so I’d suggest first laying the groundwork for democracy using the same combination of economic and diplomatic engagement, education, and truth that made citizens of most Soviet countries choose democracy after the collapse of communism. THEN start opening up the political process.

Here’s an excellent essay on the subject subtitled, “The strategy that won the Cold War could help bring democracy to the Middle East - if only the Bush hawks understood it.”

The West spent forty years discrediting the Soviet government in the eyes of its citizens, and making sure they knew there was an attractive alternative: democracy. The 1975 Helsinki Accords on human rights opened the doors for Soviet human rights activists to document the abuses of the Soviet regime. We supported the Solidarity movement, the Catholic Church’s call for liberty, and student exchange programs. One of those students, Oleg Kalugin, wound up as a top KGB official. Kalugin later said: “Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system…they kept infecting more and more people over the years.” Along with Western market ties, and above all, Western media, these programs all combined to discredit the Soviet government in the eyes of its citizens and to sell them on democracy and capitalism.

…We can’t know precisely how the desire for freedom among the peoples of the Middle East will grow and evolve into movements that result in stable democratic governments. Different countries may take different paths. Progress may come from a beneficent king, from enlightened mullahs, from a secular military, from a women’s movement, from workers returning from years spent as immigrants in Western Europe, from privileged sons of oil barons raised on MTV, or from an increasingly educated urban intelligentsia, such as the nascent one in Iran. But if the events of the last year tell us anything, it is that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely to come at the point of our gun. And Ronald Reagan would have known better than to try.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 30, 2005 01:36 AM

With all due respect to Wesley Clark, he also misses the point.

Things like Radio Free Europe, our public affairs programs etc. laid the necessary groundwork for the fall of communism, but they were not sufficient to finish it off.

Everyone believes in exchanges and person-to-person contact. We have been doing those things with the Middle East for many years. Most of the opinion leaders in most of the Middle East have been on some exchange program or had some Western education. Our penetration of these societies is at least as great as our penetration of the societies of the Soviet Empire. (An interesting thing about exchanges with the old Warsaw Pact is that relatively fewer of the resistance leaders had been on our programs. We worked with the establishment and the establishment was the communists and their allies.)

But persuasion only goes so far. It is the classic problem of education. If you don’t use it, you don’t develop it. When the exchanges go back to their oppressive societies, they fall back into their old adaptations.

One more thing. Iran is probably as ready for democratic change as anywhere in E. Europe. They are oppressed by the Mullahs, not by their lack of desire. And they are unlikely to vote for another theocracy if given the chance.

Some specifics in Clark’s article. He mentions Bronislaw Geremek. I know this guy personally. I don’t want to put words in the mouth of someone who speaks well for himself, but I know that he, like virtually all the Solidarity activists, credit Reagan’s policies with being necessary to ending communism. Again – not sufficient. The Pope, Walesa and many others were also necessary.

But a continuation of the Carter policy probably would have preserved the evil empire to fight another day.

Beyond that Clark writes: “Of course, military pressure played a vital role in making containment work. But we applied that pressure in concert with allies in Europe. In the 1980s, for instance, President Reagan began the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Europe as part of NATO. It was a political struggle in the West, but we engaged NATO and made it work.”

He is being really disingenuous here. He knows that the Reagan administration had to face down Euro and American opinion on this matter that makes the opposition to the Iraq war look like a cakewalk. He also understands that the French and German leaders supported the U.S. against the will of their publics because their own security was directly and immediately on the line. They were afraid that the U.S. would pull back. Conditions were just the opposite in 2002.

Without Reagan I do not believe the Soviet Empire would have fallen. You are right that at the time (by then Bush I) we were interested in maintaining stability. We were slow to recognize what was going on. Bush I was more comfortable dealing with the Soviets than with the gaggle of new states. But by then, even the support of the U.S. couldn’t stand against the tide. It is hard to open the door to freedom just a little bit and harder still to modulate it the way you want. And it is hardest to be right in choosing how to TRY to control it.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2005 09:13 AM

Which is exactly my point, Jack. If you lay the groundwork - which clearly was not done in Iraq - the pieces fall where we want them when the old regime folds for whatever reason.

Bush already screwed that up with Iraq. It would be idiotic, not to mention dangerous, to undermine the remaining authoritarian regimes - the regimes that are keeping groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in check - until we’re sure the alternative isn’t going to be another Ayatollah Khomeini or Ayatollah Sistani, or some Hamas or Hezbollah jihadist.

I can’t believe you’re even arguing about that.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 30, 2005 10:30 AM

Most other parts of E. Europe are much better off.

That depends very much where you look. The Baltic states, Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, and (to a lesser extent) Slovakia are doing well because there is a history of liberal institutions as a result of German and Austrian and Polish rule.

Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania are not doing nearly as well, largely because their pre-communist history was dominated by the Ottoman Empire, which did not leave a legacy of liberal institutions.

Belarus and especially Moldova are complete basket cases, and Ukraine is just coming out of the same sitution. They are in such bad shape largely because their pre-communist legacy was the oppressive Tzarist regime.

What does this tell us about the Middle East? Unfortunately, it’s disheartening. Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Saudia Arabia have legacies about as devoid of positive models as Belarus or Albania. Democracy is definitely possible in these countries, but building a successful democracy in those countries will require a lot more work than just having an election and declaring victory.

Lebanon has a better chance due to the success they had in building institutions before 1975. Many of those institutions were destroyed in the civil war, but the country has a chance if it can manage Syria and Hezbollah.

Palestine is the other country (?) that has a chance in building a successful democracy. Ironically, the model and legacy for a successful democracy for Palestine is Israel. I’s bizarre, but Israel may give Palestine the best chance in the region of building a democracy.

The overall point is that building democracies is going to be very difficult throughout the region. Both sides can point to examples in Eastern Europe that support their view, but an analysis of the differences between the successes and the failures in E. Europe shows that the road ahead will be difficult.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 10:33 AM

i f with bush

Posted by: CMurda at March 30, 2005 12:43 PM

bush and condi are some monsters (in a good way) isn’t that what we need?

Posted by: CMurda at March 30, 2005 12:53 PM

The problem is with intervention period. Who trained Osama, who sold chemical weapons to Iraq? This country did under Reagan. Further a bunch of the people who made those decisions then are making them now. How long till these decisions comeback to haunt us.
We should not force democracy. Read the federalist papers, the points they make about the tyrany of the majority are important here. Then look to the last election in this country, what was the percentage of voters who believed Saddam Husein was responsible for 9-11? I hate to say it but many people are misinformed and don’t care that they are missinformed.
Don’t get me wrong I love democracy, I just do not think it can be forced and I recognize the possible dangers inherent in it.

Posted by: Vague at March 30, 2005 01:10 PM

Vague

Speaking of being misinformed …

The U.S. did not train Osama bin Laden and the U.S. did not sell chemical weapons to Iraq during the 1980s. These are always repeated and they have the conspiracy theory smidgeon of truth (i.e. the U.S. was involved in Afghanistan when Osama was there and the U.S. traded with Iraq during the period) but any objective analysis would find them wrong. In fact, believing those things are a lot like the belief that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 also with the conspiracy theory smidgeon of truth, probably with a similar percentage of people believing it.

Others

This talk about forcing democracy is also interesting.

One reason conspiracy theories about the U.S. and Saddam or Osama abound is that the U.S. is involved with everything around the world. If we don’t support democracy, it can be seen as a support for despots even if we do very little more than business as usual. If we support democracy - even if only rhetorically - it will help to those struggling.

There always has to be a first freedom. The analysis given of E. Europe success stories is not historically accurate. I like that “The Baltic states, Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, and (to a lesser extent) Slovakia are doing well because there is a history of liberal institutions as a result of German and Austrian and Polish rule.”

That would be the Baltic States under the Russian czar briefly independent and then under the Soviet Union. And those liberal Germans and Austrians. Are we talking about Kaiser Wilhelm or Kaiser Franz Josef or do we mean those paragons of German/Austrian liberalism, the Nazis? Poland had a liberal revolution in 1792. It lasted a couple of months before the absolutists from Prussia, Russian and Austria carved the country up and ruled the various partitions for the next 123 years. Pessimists could (and did) find plenty to worry about in E. Europe.

Now let’s compare the others. Iraq was run by the Brits or by a fairly benign monarchy until the late 1950s. The last relatively free election was held in 1954. That is a long time ago, but pretty much the same as the E. European experience. Egypt had similar, but longer experience with the Brits and a relatively liberal monarchy. Both fell victims to Arab socialism within living memory. Iran is probably the most democratic ready place in the Middle East. The Iranians people spontaneously called for a national assembly way back in 1905. They had a semi democratic revolution in 1954, which we, fearing democracy and favoring autocrats, to our shame helped put down. Is that the policy you guy like better?

All in all, a betting person back in say 1975 would probably give you better odds on Iraq, Egypt and Iran than on Poland, Czech Republic or the Baltics. Face it, the only reason people have these doubts is because these countries are non-European. Westerners are not the only people who can handle liberty.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2005 01:59 PM

That would be the Baltic States under the Russian czar briefly independent and then under the Soviet Union.

Yes, but you’re ignoring the Hanseatic history of those regions and their strong cultural ties to Germans and scandinavians. It’s an old connection, but it’s there. I know you’ll disparage the idea, but do you have an alternate explanation why those three countries have succeeded where Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova haven’t?

And those liberal Germans and Austrians. Are we talking about Kaiser Wilhelm or Kaiser Franz Josef or do we mean those paragons of German/Austrian liberalism, the Nazis?

Within context, yes, the Hapsburg and Prussian monarchies were more liberal in the sense that they built free markets and institutions whereas the Tzars and the Ottomans didn’t. I’m not talking about the Nazis, either.

I’m not making this up, either. This is a pretty common analysis. As Thomas Friedman noted in a column earlier this month:

Looking at Eastern Europe on the eve of the fall of the Berlin Wall, said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a lecturer on the Middle East at Oxford, “we could have predicted which countries would have an easy transition to democracy and which ones not.” Countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, which had a history of liberal institutions and free markets that had been suppressed by communism, quickly flourished. Others farther east, which did not have such institutions in their past and were starting from scratch - Bulgaria, Romania and the former Soviet republics - have struggled since the fall of the wall.

All in all, a betting person back in say 1975 would probably give you better odds on Iraq, Egypt and Iran than on Poland, Czech Republic or the Baltics.

Of course. At the time, the Soviet Union didn’t look like it would fall. If, however, a betting person were able to assume everything that communism would fall in about 15 years and Western institutions would provide financial and political backing to the new governments, the bet would be different.

Face it, the only reason people have these doubts is because these countries are non-European. Westerners are not the only people who can handle liberty.

Bull***t. This is a historical argument based on the experiences of what is needed to build a democracy successfully. Accusing me of being racist because I say that Lebanese have a different history than Iraqis or that Romanians have a different history than Hungarians is ludicrous. Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 02:43 PM

I think in the case of the Oxford Don it is important to look as his use of tenses - “we COULD HAVE predicted” but they didn’t. A lot of people predict these things after the fact. That is why a lot of people talk about the big money they could have made in the stock market, but don’t actually have any.

One case study, soon after 1989, Poland fell into a severe depression. Politically there was chaos of hundreds of small parties. Even the Pope joked that there were only two possible solutions: one miraculous and the other realistic. Either the Virgin Mary could arrive to save her favorite people with angles and the archangels in train … or you could have the miraculous solution of Poles compromising.

There are definite cultural differences in the pursuit of progress, democracy and free markets and they make crucial difference – until they don’t.

Think of the case of Spain. A more backward basket case of a country could not be found in W. Europe. Experts developed elaborate theories to explain and excuse it’s plight. They had a lack of liberal tradition going back to the inquisition. Then in the course of about ten years, the albatross of those centuries dropped away.

We make the past conform to the present in our analysis ex-post facto. Lets talk about the Scandinavian influence and the Hansa on the Baltics. The Hansa were merchants. Their organization was secretive, hierarchical and mercantilist. Because societies developed subsequently in a more bourgeois, if not democratic way, we read backwards and find the roots. Arabs have a long tradition of being merchants, being open to new things and adapting to wide circumstances. What we now call human rights and innovation were probably better respected among Arab merchants than the Hansa. It is just that their subsequent history was such that we now ignore that. In the middle of the 19th Century, Denmark was one of the most oppressive monarchies in Europe. Because it changed, we forget that. We even look for the roots of democracy among the Vikings, who despite their cool reputation today were nothing more than gangs of terrorist pagan thugs.

Speaking of the Hapsburgs and Hollenzollerns, they were more liberal than some, but they were not democratic and the societies they ruled regressed to Nazi barbarism in short order. It took total defeat in World War II to bring democracy to Germany (and Austria). The Ottomans were more despotic. That is true, but Turkey made a more or less successful transition to democracy earlier than Germany without the need to be destroyed by Allied airforces.

When a reasonably democratic system emerges in Iraq, people will say that they could have predicted that it would happen there first. After all, Iraq has some of the best infrastructure base in the Arab world. Baghdad has the tradition of being an open cultural center. There is the nearly half century British influence and, of course, even during Ottoman times, Mesopotamia was a relatively advanced part of the empire. And they will explain away the American intervention.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2005 05:07 PM

ok, Jack. How do you explain that Central Europe has done well, Southeastern Europe hasn’t done well, and the former Soviet republics are basket cases?

The three groups of nations internally have similar histories and similar results, but you dislike the explanation that the common history matters. Are you saying the correlation is coincidence? Do you finger another cause?

You’re right that my explanation for the Baltics is a weaker part of the analysis. Perhaps the ties to Finland and Sweden (especially for Estonia) is a better explanation. However, the analysis for Poland vs. Romania vs. Moldova is strong, and what’s left tells us that transitions in Iraq, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc. will be difficult.

The next paragraph in Friedman’s article describes this well:

The same will be true in the Middle East, where democracy will not just spring up because autocrats fall down. It will arise only if these countries develop, among other things, export-oriented private sectors, which can be the foundation for a vibrant middle class that is not dependent upon the state for contracts and has a vital interest in an open economy, a free press and its own political parties. The development of such a private sector was crucial in democratizing Taiwan and South Korea.

Some eastern european nations had more of these institutions in place and in their cultures than others.

Spain and Portugal and Ireland made their quick economic transitions largely because they joined with the rest of Western Europe, which had a strong economy. Both had many of the institutions in place thanks to common cultural heritage with western europe. A pre-requisite for that in Spain and Portugal was getting rid of dictatorships. When that was completed, there was a community of successful states that helped pull them up.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 30, 2005 05:41 PM

I don’t say that history and culture don’t matter. But I do believe that our interpretations of history might not always be correct. We fit the history into today’s world to a very great extent. I have seen paradigm shifts and reinterpretations several times in my life. Poland was one such reinterpretation. Western scholars had no confidence in Poland. Now it has become the poster child. The same is true of Spain, Korea, and Latin America in general. When I was in college, conventional wisdom was that Latin America was incompatible with democracy. In 1980, only two Latin countries were democracies. By the end of Reagan’s term in 1988 only two were still dictatorships. Korea was a basket case and then it “needed” a dictatorship. The assessments have gone the other direction on places like Iraq and Iran, which were considered at take off stage in the middle of the 1970s.

Grouping of countries by culture region is subjective. Much of Romania, for example, was very long part of the same Hapsburg Empire as Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bosnia. You can see the borders of the old empire when you look at restaurant menus. You find Goulash in the Hapsburg lands and Borsch in the old Russian Empire, but that doesn’t always mean they share a common destiny. By the way, if I were investing in countries, I would put some money into both Romania and Bulgaria.

History can be a guide, but it shouldn’t be a burden. Changes that used to take centuries are now compressed into decades. The fact is that we have provoked revolutionary change in the Middle East so we may as well make the best of it.

Besides, the situation for the last 50 years really sucked. So what did we have to lose? The most populous country and the logical regional power (Iran) is a theocracy already. The largest oil producer (Saudi) is run by a medieval monarchy and also is essentially a theocracy, probably more oppressive than Iran. The Gulf states were making some progress and probably are not in imminent danger of collapse in the new order. The pivotal border state was run by a dictator who patterned his state on Nazi Germany, admired Stalin and had engaged in aggressive war against four of his neighbors, costing millions of lives. Next door is another fascist state that sponsors terrorism. Then you authoritarian Egypt (probably one of the best we had) Libya run by a crazy man, Sudan in the midst of a perpetual genocidal civil war. The risk of losing all that might not be too hard to contemplate.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2005 08:37 PM

Besides, the situation for the last 50 years really sucked.

For whom, Jack? Are you still arguing that a Middle East run by the jihadists and their terrorist allies is better for the United States than the authoritarian regimes that have been keeping them in check for 50 years?

After 9/11, when Dr. Rice says the terrorists should rule the Middle East - “Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater - let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point?” - it sounds faintly traiterous.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 30, 2005 10:12 PM

Does anyone else think that Condi doesn’t really think that well on her feet? I mean, with the crap that comes out of her mouth, you have to think that there was little thought before the execution.

Posted by: Zeek at March 30, 2005 10:51 PM

I really think Condi is doing great and so do most of the foreign leaders she has been visiting. I have not seen such good revues for a serving American official since … ever. Our friends tend to praise our leaders only after they leave office, so the reaction to her is surprising.

I was very fond of Colin Powell and I wasn’t sure Condi had the grit for the job. I was pleasantly surprised and remain impressed.

Posted by: Jack at March 30, 2005 11:25 PM

Please, Jack. You know as well as I do that no one says bad things about serving Sec States. Hell, Chirac always has something nice to say about Bush - and vice versa for that matter.

For my money, she’s average to bad - and without even the little moderating influence Powell had. Where Powell voiced concerns about Bush’s wacko ultra-liberal foreign policy, Condi’s making wild rationalizations to support it.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 31, 2005 04:30 AM

Jack,

Are you so sure I’m the misinformed one?

We sold potential WMDs to Saddam
The CIA was involved with Osama Bin Laden
Show me my errors if you can.

Posted by: Vague at March 31, 2005 10:02 AM

That would be the Baltic States under the Russian czar briefly independent and then under the Soviet Union.

Based on further thought, I’m going to retract on my concession on this point. Latvia and Estonia had 600 years of German and Swedish rule before Russian rule started in the early 1700s. Lithuania was independent and/or united with Poland until 1791, leaving even less time under Russian rule.

So, they had a lot of western rule and experience and institutions before the relatively short Russian and Soviet rule (200-300 years is short relative to Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova’s domination by Russia).

However, even while under Russian Rule, they maintained their old institutions. In Estonia, for example, the legal system, Lutheran church, local and town governments, and education remained mostly German until the late 19th century and partially until 1918. By 1819, the Baltic provinces were the first in the Russian empire in which serfdom was abolished, the largely autonomous nobility allowing the peasants to own their own land or move to the cities. These moves created the economic foundation for the awakening of Estonian national culture that had lain dormant for some 600 years of foreign rule. Estonia was caught in a current of national awakening that began sweeping through Europe in the mid-1800s.(same source as above).

So, their experience is similar to each other, but different from other parts of Eastern Europe. The results of the last 15 years are similar to each other, but different from the rest of Eastern Europe. Can this be just a coincidence?

Much of Romania, for example, was very long part of the same Hapsburg Empire as Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bosnia.

True, Transylvania was in the Hapsburg empire. However, the majority of the country, including the capital and areas of political power, were held under Ottoman control.

You mention Slovenia, which is another interesting case. Compare the progress of Slovenia, which was controlled by the Hapsburgs and is closest part of Yugoslavia to Western Europe, to the progress of Macedonia, which was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Yet again, the pattern holds, as Slovenia is a much more successful state than Macedonia is.

By the way, if I were investing in countries, I would put some money into both Romania and Bulgaria.

I highly recommend both as tourism destinations. I spent a week in each in 2003 with my wife, and we loved both, particularly Bulgaria. A bunch of pictures from our trip are available if you follow the link connected to my name.

I’m not saying that history is inviolate as destiny. There are far too many counter-examples (many of which you have presented) to be able to claim that. However, the hypothesis that “considering the historical and cultural resources of liberal institutions is valuable in understanding how successful and quick a transition to full democracy might be accomplished” is valid and has a lot of historical evidence to support it. Would we ever be able to prove it? Of course not. First, there are enough caveats in the hypothesis to choke a horse. Second, the hypothesis can be tested only in the real world, which has too few case studies and is too messy (what country would be the control?).

However, there is enough information and history to suggest that a democratic transition will likely be very difficult in Saudi Arabia, not quite as bad in Iraq or Egypt, and relatively easier in Lebanon and Palestine.

This is not to say that pushing for democratic change in the area is not worth it. It’s a warning that the job is harder than just running elections.

Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2005 10:08 AM

Vague

Read the Washington Post article carefully.

The U.S. tilted toward Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war supplying intelligence and allowing others to share intelligence. The U.S. was involved in Iraq and it looked like Iran was a bigger risk.

The article is written artfully. It says that Saddam used chemical weapons during the time when the U.S. was talking to Iraq. That is true. It says that the U.S. opposed the use of chemical weapons, although took no steps in consequence. It never says the U.S. sold chemical weapons to Iraq or encouraged others to do so. The best you have is that The U.S. allowed the sale of “$1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents.” 1.5 million is not much. We probably use that much in pesticide on our lawns where I live. Iraq is an agricultural country with legitimate uses for such things.

Chemical weapons technologies that the Iraqis used were developed in 1915. It is not hard to make. All it requires is the money and the will to do it. That is why it is so dangerous and Saddam’s use of such things made him dangerous. The U.S. sold almost no weapons to Saddam. You just have to look at the weapons he had on hand in 1990: lots from the French, more from the Soviets, but nothing significant from the U.S. Even Brazil and Czechoslovakia sold more to Saddam than we did. That is why it is essentially the same kind of story as Saddam and 9/11.

You can find some trails, but they don’t lead anywhere.

Re Osama

I can’t get the article you mentioned to come up, but that also is an old story similar to the Saddam 9/11. The U.S. helped fund the covert war in Afghanistan, so Osama and the U.S. were on the same side back then. The U.S. funded Afghan fighters, of which there was no shortage. There were no direct links between the CIA and Arab fighters, although they traveled in some of the same circle (just like same circles but no direct links Saddam and 9/11). .
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html" target="blank"> Check the debunking

So, if you mean that the U.S. had contacts with Saddam and Osama and sometimes fought common enemies, you are right. But the implication in the sorts of statements you made (which may not be your intent) is that the U.S. is responsible for Saddam or Osama and that is wrong.

In general, this whole sordid affair supports what Condi is doing to challenge dictatorships.

Posted by: jack at March 31, 2005 12:32 PM

Lawnboy

Good analysis. History can be useful, but shouldn’t be a burden.

The test case is Iraq. We won’t know the results of the experiment for at least a decade. It took that long in E. Europe and some experiments are stil in progress. If we can’t make it happen in Iraq, we can’t make it happen and we will be stuck with years of bloodshed and folly.

I believe that our intervention in Iraq created hope that we can short circuit the bloodshed and folly and in the end have less of it. You may disagree with my analysis, but we all hope I am right in the prediction.

Posted by: Jack at March 31, 2005 12:38 PM

Jack,

Reasonable people can disagree, I see something nefarious in the interactions and you don’t, that’s fair. But I don’t think either of us is ill-informed, unlike the voters who believed that Saddam was involved with 9-11. My point is that in one way or another we helped to create situations which we thought were beneficial but which in more recent years have caused trouble. I personally do not think we should intervene. Maybe our involvement stopped a greater evil or maybe it created it. I can’t say what would have occurred but I know the results of what did occur. I cannot trust the actions of this administration, I think it is just more of what is in my opinion poor judgment.

Posted by: Vague at March 31, 2005 03:09 PM

Vague

Whether we like it or not we are intervening. The nefariousness you see in the 1980s was the result of a very small action (from the U.S. standpoint). The alternative, enforce an embargo on Iraq, would probably have resulted in an Iranian victory. We have no zero option. The U.S. is too big a dog to sit out any important fight. I agree that we should be very circumspect in what we are doing.

Since we can’t sit it out, we should be bias, where possible, in the direction of greater freedom and democracy. If you go back and read the issues of Foreign Affairs from the 1970s and 1980s, you will find that Iraq was sort of a model case. The chattering classes thought Saddam was someone to deal with. He was establishing a kind of welfare/socialist state (which pleased the lefties) and he was modernizing his country and a force for stability (which pleased the righties). The fact that he was a sociopath and megalomaniac was not clear or ignored. How many times have leaders from democracies thought they could tame an evil dictator?

Personally, I think the tilt toward Saddam was a good move, given the alternative of Iran overrunning the whole region and/or becoming regional hegemon. Better still would have been if Saddam had not proved the war in the first place. But in the world of constrained choice, we have to make the best of it.

What I see sometimes and object to is the blame America reflex. We are a big player in almost everything, but not everything is our fault, or at least if we get the blame we should get a similar amount of credit if things go right. So hypothetically, we could say the U.S. helped save the world in the 1980s from the spread of a virulent theocracy that might have destroyed much of the world’s oil infrastructure and provoked a worldwide depression lowering living standards and costing millions of lives in terms. The cost was supporting an evil dictator who a few years later overreached, provoked a war and tried to control or destroy much of the world’s oil infrastructure, but was prevented by U.S. leadership. Subsequently, the U.S. invaded Iraq and tried to establish a democracy. Whether it will take or not is still unknown.

Posted by: Jack at March 31, 2005 04:51 PM

Personally, I think the tilt toward Saddam was a good move, given the alternative of Iran overrunning the whole region and/or becoming regional hegemon.

See, this is what I’m talking about. If toppling Saddam’s regime is bad now, why wasn’t it bad then? Is your heart-felt belief in spreading democracy only limited to this Bush administration? Even the humanitarian angle was way more relevent back then than it was in 2003.

You just sound like a Bush-fan, supporting Bush no matter what and rationalizing away the disconnect between what you think is right and what Bush is actually doing.

If supporting Saddam was good when the alternative was Iran, why is removing Saddam (or Mubarek, or even the Sauds) a good thing when the alternative is radical Islamic fundamentalism?

And don’t try to tell me that’s not the alternative, because Condi says it is. Or is Condi an idiot now?

Posted by: American Pundit at April 1, 2005 08:24 AM

Conditions have changed a lot since the middle 1980s and I have changed my outlook some with them.

First the outlook part. In the middle 1980s I was a “realist” fighting the Soviet Union because I believed it was the greatest source of evil in the modern world. I thought that we had to line up with some very bad guys in order not to succumb to the ultimate bad guy. I still retain some of those realistic strains, but I have come to understand better the power of ideas and freedom. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a wonderful example. It combined the role of ideas and freedom, pursued relentlessly in a realistic way by the Reagan Administration. I never thought I would live to see the end of the Soviet Union and if the combination of the believe in freedom and the real application of power can bring down something like that, it should be able to mop up some of the world’s little tyrants too.

In those days, I was also a relativist. I thought that people around the world were very different and that I couldn’t judge what others were doing by my standards. I still understand that people around the world are different, but I have come to understand that there are certain human things we all want. Inalienable right “among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Nobody wants to be oppressed and there quite simply is NO legitimate government that does not derive its power from the consent of the governed. I accept that there are nuances to democracies around the world that are equally valid, but I don’t accept that a non-democracy is anything but an expedient, and probably worse.

The world also is different. Supporting (such as we did) Saddam was an expedient. The Iranian revolution was like a virulent disease. You sometimes need to use drastic measures to stop an epidemic. I don’t believe the Iranian ascendancy would have continued even if they conquered Iraq, but it would have been very destructive. The theocracy in Iran has proven a failure. Muslims are not blind to the truth any more than others. If given a free choice, they will not choose such oppression. Let’s look at the test case in Iraq. Shiite religious leaders are strong in the new politics. But that does not mean theocracy. I recall how strong Catholic religious leaders were in Poland during the fight against Communism. We feared that less, because we knew it better, but considering the history of the Catholic Church, we could have easily whipped up hysteria.

I don’t advocate wiping the slate clean in the Middle East and starting for scratch. I don’t believe that is what Condi wants. She is also a realist mugged by the idealist reality. Listen to what she says, but watch what she does. But you can’t achieve goals if you don’t set them high. Rhetoric has to inspire; practical deed must achieve. When Ronald Reagan talked about destroying the evil empire, people feared he would provoke Armageddon. In fact, Reagan was an idealist working with realistic tools. He never stopped working or talking. I think we have the same thing at work today.

Posted by: Jack at April 1, 2005 10:47 AM

Jack, if free peple in the Middle East weren’t electing jihadists, I’d eat crow and be all over that idealistic crap. Success brings forgiveness - failure brings blue-ribbon investigation panels.

Bush took his chance to prove it would work, just like the Soviets took theirs. They both failed. Time to stop throwing good money (and good lives, and many other good things) after bad. Christ on a crutch! Am I the only conservative on foreign policy around here?

I don?t advocate wiping the slate clean in the Middle East and starting for scratch. I don?t believe that is what Condi wants.

So are we supposed to have psychics divine Condi’s intentions? Are we NOT supposed to take Condi at her words? Is everything OK, because Bush administration officials just can’t possibly be as stupid as they sound?

“Oh sure. Nobody wants to see the rise of greater fundamentalism or greater – let me use extremism. But it is really as opposed to what at this point?”

Posted by: American Pundit at April 1, 2005 08:46 PM

AP, you repeat that quote so much I’m beginning to think you’ve taken lessons from Karl Rove ;)

Posted by: Zeek at April 2, 2005 05:24 PM