Democratic Peace
There's a lot of discussion of the democratic peace in this hizzie lately. Not being an IR (international relations) expert, I can't really offer an informed opinion on that. I will say that the U.S. and Britain went to war once in the nineteenth century and there were tense relations for much of that century, but maybe one or neither was "democratic" in the nineteenth century.
My concern is not whether democracies fight one another, but how one democracy, the United States of America, behaves in the international community. From my perspective, democracy means first and foremost self-determination. That can mean bad things as well as good, as anyone can see from the last five presidential elections in the U.S. Regardless of your personal voting patterns, you must have voted for the loser in at least one of those races, and you probably think that bad things happened as a result. But, again, from my perspective, this means that the subjects/citizens of a particular country are responsible for (a) themselves and (b) their leaders. J.S. Mill called this the principle of "self-help" and argued that what we would call democratic interventions are only effective when they side with a people struggling against oppression and in favor of freedom. That means that even oppressed people are responsible for starting the Good Fight, even if they can't end it, successfully, without help. I would add that unless the oppressed are actually in arms, our arms are pretty much only capable of destruction.
Is this a harsh position to take with regard to oppressed peoples? Yeah, it probably is. It might even be called "realist." But it's not our business that people in other countries are oppressed, starving, killing one another--not unless, of course, our government is responsible for the oppression, starving, or killings. Before you get all pissy on me, consider whether it's the business of the English, French, Kuwaitis, or Thais what the hell we do in the U.S. of A. Should Turkey, Bulgaria, or Mozambique have a say in our internal policies? Should the Indian government influence our elections? Americans are always so eager to assert themselves in the business of other people, but they just don't tolerate "foreign involvement" in U.S. affairs. (Think Chavez's fuel oil program for the northeastern U.S. this winter.) To go from the premise that democracies don't fight one another to the premise that the U.S. should take an active role in exporting democracy to the Middle East is quite a leap. Even if it were possible for the U.S. to do this, I'm not sure that that would be right.
I'm willing to go a long way down this road, people. Is it my problem that the Palestinians elected Hamas? No. It's not. It might be Israel's problem, but I'm not an Israeli, now, am I? If Israel faces this demographic problem, if, ultimately, Israel is not viable as a Jewish state, that's bad for Israel and Israelis. I don't have anything against Israel; in fact, I'm quite sympathetic to the Jews, in general. But some things are not meant to be. Surely this is not the first time you've run into this unpleasant fact?
And this cuts both ways, because, at the same time, it's none of Hamas's business if we elect Bush or Kerry, a Republican or Democratic Congress.
Was the failure to intervene in Rwanda Clinton's greatest failure, as TMcD asserts in a comment? No. It cannot possibly be the case that every bad thing that happens in the world is somehow the responsibility of the United States government to prevent or mitigate. Sometimes, people kill other people, even in large numbers. But is it our job to put a stop to it?
It seems to me that one has to accept an almost messianic role for the United States to posit such things. The U.S. is not a special nation among nations, charged with the duty of policing the world. The belief that we are such a nation is what has gotten us in our current predicament.
Am I an isolationist? No. I believe that the U.S. has important interests that require the assertion of U.S. power abroad. But I am not an idealist, and I reject any messianic role for the United States of America.
And, to clarify, I am specifically talking about the United States government's role here. It may be my personal duty, on a moral level, to contribute money or time to helping out starving or suffering people in Darfur or the victims of the Pakistan earthquake. I think it probably is. But that's a very separate question from whether it is proper for the U.S. government to take an active role in the internal affairs of other nations. And my answers are also somewhat different if we are talking international agreements related to trade. But that's not what the neocon debate going on here is all about.
posted by Number Three @ 10:08 PM
2 Comments:
I'm with Wilson here: I'm not sure what the US's duties are, but I think Emery is too dismissive here. I do know that we can't be held morally responsible for things we cannot do and don't know how to do--as in build functioning democracies in the Middle East. But I don't know what we should be responsible for.
It seems to me that responsibilities to noncitizens are the most diffiult issues in political theory. What would be a moral: (1) immigration policy, (2) foreign aid level, (3) standard for humanitarian intervention? Given our vast riches as a country and a military force that outpaces the rest of the world together, what do we owe?
Is it right to ask American soldiers to die for causes that are unrelated to American self-defense or American national interests? If so, what standard should govern it? Is it, as Wilson says, situations when a small effort on our part would do such enormous good? Or should the standard be more onerous? Should we be required to do all that is possible? It seems to me that the latter asks far too much of those who serve our country. What might be good Christian morality--give all you have to the poor--wouldn't be moral for a country to pursue as a policy on behalf its own citizens, soldiers and taxpayers. Thinking in social contract terms, who would consent to a government whose primary purpose is protecting the rights of noncitizens rather than citizens?
So, anyway, I'd be looking for some kind of middle road. We do not have the duty to do the impossible. And I don't we don't have the duty to do all that is possible. But most cases fall very much in the middle. I doubt that any clear standard could be articulated. This, I suppose, is why it's so important to have leaders with good jugdment and a political system to hold them democratically accountable.
Some really thoughtful comments here from Frances and Wilson. Insofar as I helped kick some of this debate in gear with my Rwanda example, let me just say that I don't support a "messianic" US foreign policy either. Who would, put that way? OK, maybe some of the folks at the Weekly Standard. But I don't think anyone is arguing that the US has the superman responsibility to right every world wrong. For the most part, the neocons just operate with a different idea of what is, in fact, possible, given the changed international circumstances post-Cold War. Their practical estimate of our power may be wildly wrong, but their suggestion that the US (as preeminent world power) does have some affirmative obligation to promote democracy abroad in an increasingly interconnected world is morally reasonable.
Emery, your post seems to be an IR extention of the libertarian view of human nature. The only reality is the atomic individual. You only have responsibility for yourself, as does each other free, autonomous human agent. Your moral obligation to others rests with leaving them alone until they do direct physical harm to you or your allies. Just substitute nations for individuals.
This is a very narrow view of human nature and moral commitment, and I don't think it applies any better to foreign policy than it does to domestic policies. Was it "our job" to intervene and save Europe from Hitler? The America Firsters said, "No" but no one else would now agree (except maybe Pat Buchanan). The world is too interrelated, and human life consists of more than the private sphere of material self-interest. We've had our "liberal" vs. "democratic-republican" debate before, so I'll avoid the deep weeds of communitarian critique. But I think even liberalism, as you understand it (Mill and Rorty vs. Hayek and Nozick), recognizes moral claims beyond pure "none of my business" individualism.
One way to look at the moral reasoning here is this: some actions are morally required (fighting Hitler), others are morally prohibited (ethnic cleansing), and still others are in a gray area of the morally permissable. In those cases, we have to use our best practical reasoning concerning the ends at stake, the means we have availiable, and the opportunities for success, to make imperfect judgments. Clinton may not have been morally required to invade Rwanda, but it was a doable operation that could have saved many, many lives at relatively low cost to us. Clinton held back because he didn't want a fight with the DeLay caucus, not because he didn't think it worth doing. That's what I would call failed moral judgment in that complex middle category.
Post a Comment
<< Home