The catastrophic occupation of Iraq is evidence of far more than the incompetence of the Bush administration; it is proof that the conservative worldview is fatally flawed. As the forty-third presidency staggers to an ignominious finale, liberals must prepare not only to govern America, but also to proclaim a new vision. Liberal foreign policy should be based upon ten elemental concepts:
1. America needs to lead by example, rather than by force. While it seems obvious to most Americans that the United States should practice what it preaches, this essential moral maxim was abandoned by a Bush administration whose operating philosophy is: "Do what I say, not what I do". Bush conservatism brought a host of problems to US democratic process: stolen elections, denial of civil rights, and unlawful expansion of presidential authority, to mention only a few. Liberal leaders must practice democracy and set foreign policy from that moral ground.
2. Propagating democracy requires a multinational effort, rather than unilateral action. Americans believe that democracy should be spread throughout the world; the question is by what means. Conservatives maintain the US has unique moral status in the world and, therefore, the privilege to govern the world community: "We're the biggest and, therefore, the best." This conceit, the belief in American exceptionalism, serves as an excuse for US imperialism. Liberals believe that a multipolar effort is required to spread democracy.
3. Democracy cannot be imposed; it has to be nurtured. Bush conservatism argues that American military power can catalyse western-style democracy in non-democratic states: "Might makes right." Liberals believe that while multinational police forces can protect human rights they can't guarantee democracy.
4. There's more to foreign policy than shaking a big stick. Conservative foreign policy presumes that a strong military is America's best ambassador: "Adopt democracy or we'll shoot you." This big-stick approach hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Iraq and shows no sign of working in the rest of the world. Liberal foreign policy recognises that diplomacy is an essential tool both in promoting democracy and building coalitions in the national interest.
5. Democracy is not synonymous with capitalism. The Bush administration advocates a cardboard version of democracy that emphasises property rights and open markets, and glosses over the necessity for human rights and civil society. Its approach stems from an elemental conservative maxim: "In a democracy, free markets inevitably solve national problems." Predictably the application of this doctrine in non-western societies produced authoritarian, plutocratic states featuring rampant inequality and environmental degradation.
Also in openDemocracy on the United States and the world:
Anatol Lieven, "America right or wrong"
(8 September 2004)
Godfrey Hodgson, "America against itself" (19 February 2007)
Francis Fukuyama, "After the 'end of history'" (2 May 2006) – with responses from Shadia Drury, Talal Asad, Olivier Roy, and Gavin Kitching
Michael Lind, "What next? US foreign policy after Bush" (12 February 2007) – with responses from Mary Kaldor, Sankaran Krishna, Richard Falk and David Rieff
6. Some emerging democracies cannot support western-style capitalism. Because of their confidence in the power of the open market, Bush conservatives invariably get the cart before the horse: "Ensure capitalism and democracy will surely follow". In many non-western states, democracy must be nurtured - by engendering civil society - before it is strong enough to support free-market capitalism. In the meantime, capitalism must be limited or national resources will be squandered and plutocrats will prevail.
7. The global marketplace is not a substitute for global civil society. Coincident with their belief in spreading democracy through militarism, Bush conservatives have deregulated the international economy. They've promoted globalisation in the naïve belief that this would inevitably remedy international economic, environmental, political, and social problems: "The market will provide". The results have been devastating: economic inequality and environmental destruction - to name only two problems - have spiralled out of control. Liberals believe in the importance of international governance.
8. The United Nations and other international organisations need to be revamped rather than abandoned. Conservatives argue that the UN doesn't work and, therefore, should be replaced by a coalition of democracies headed by the United States. They believe that because America is the pre-eminent world power, it should determine international policy on all important matters: "We're number one; therefore, we call the shots." Liberals argue that America should redefine its role to that of building coalitions, exercising its power judiciously in a multipolar world.
9. America needs to close its overseas military bases and bring American troops home. The United States maintains more than 700 overseas military facilities and has an active military presence in more than forty countries. Bush conservatives argue that this guarantees national security: "We're safer because of our military hegemony". Liberals believe that conservatives continue to fight the cold war; that the socio-political realities of the 21st century, and the campaign against terrorism, dictate that the US should bring its troops home, beef up homeland security, and strengthen international alliances.
10. America needs to replace military spending with foreign aid. Conservatives ignore the economic and social roots of terrorism, the reality that rampant globalisation fostered the conditions that produced al-Qaida and related terrorist organisations. In place of a systemic analysis, Bush conservatives proffer platitudes: "They hate us because of our freedoms". Liberals recognise that eliminating the conditions that foster terrorism requires the rich nations of the world to help the poor, to guarantee the elemental human rights that underpin democracy.
The key to transforming US foreign policy is for American liberals to practice democracy at home.
, 
Comments
>>>>>
Bush's election was legal and vote recounts proved it.
What civil right have you lost?
Unlawful? Care to cite an example?
>>
More than 40 nations are part of the Iraq War coalition. Multi enough for you?
Unilateral? Give me a break, liar.
>>
Japan, The French Revolution, The US Revolution, Germany, Italy, Spain, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. All had non-democratic governments before violent conflict IMPOSED change.
(1) as a watered-down regurgitation of so many other more robust statements made in other publications.
(2) And, the article immediately takes the stance "Bush and the Right are bad, the Left is good and is here to save America." And it carries this thread throughout the 10 recommendations. Speaking in such simplistic, absolute terms makes this article read like an email forward whose only purpose is to allow liberals to pat themselves on the back. (And I consider myself a liberal).
The complete text of the report is available at:
http://www.iim-edu.org/u.s.economyrisks/
Foreign policy under both "liberal" and "conservative" administrations has acted as if the inverse were the golden rule, the law and the prophets.
Developing countries want to renege on debts? Let them. It isn't the US government's place to act like international investors' repo man. Besides, the lenders knew damn well when they gave large loans to dictators that they may never well see any return on their investment. Risk is factored into interest rate. Let them take the hit, rather than the dirt poor people of the country, who likely never saw the money in the first place.
A third-world country wants to nationalize a company owned in part by a US corporation, or protect an infant industry? Great! Many of today's wealthy countries used downright nationalized industries to grow; and damn near all of today's wealthy countries used one or more forms of protectionism when they were developing. Just because neoliberal ideologues are widely ignorant of this doesn't mean that leaders in poor countries don't know it, and may want to take advantage of protectionist measures. The US government should stay out of the way when developing countries want to engage in the same kind of policies today's rich countries used when they were developing.
Idealism is great,... but we should not be too normative about world politics,...the above implied isolationist American position will cause less good than harm, since the unfilled security vacuum that an American military withdrawal from world stage would leave behind will cause devastative chaos up to destruction of international institutions and massive regional escalations of conflicting interests.
Especially in the case of the constitutional role of the American president it is definitely about his/her ideological profile and his/her leadership qualities, constraining lobbies and party lines are practically surmountable. Therefore character and personality is very important.
For 2008 Obama is the best candidate, he is real and has leadership qualities. In my opinion Americas best presidents always were Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Obama has certain qualities of both.
Again, just to set the record straight, too normative ideas and solutions are dangerous, e.g. democratization of the Middle East, in the case of Saudi Arabia democratization would mean overthrow of the autocrats (House of Al Saud), irrespective if through "nurturing democracy", the consequence of empowerment of the people will be a fundamentalist Wahhabi Theocracy, basically a terror-state, a real one.
Post new comment