|
 |
December 11, 2003 BUSH AND DEMOCRACY....Over at Tacitus, Democritus asks a question:
I'm intruding on Matt Yglesias' turf here, but assuming this question to be sincere, here's the answer: neither George Bush nor any other American president, with the possible and partial exception of Jimmy Carter, has ever been especially concerned with democracy in foreign countries. Yes, Bush talks about it a lot, but it's just talk. Let's roll the tape: Taiwan? Deserving of little more than random bitch slaps if we feel like it might buy us some help from China over trade deficits and North Korea. Saudi Arabia? Our finest friends in the world. Why, we fought a whole war so that we could remove our troops from their soil. Pakistan? Their military dictatorship is a good thing as long as they help us out with the Taliban occasionally. Uzbekistan? Why make trouble over boiling people to death as long as we're allowed to set up a military base or two? I could go on, but you get the point. Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong with these positions. I'm not a big league Saudi basher myself, China is a major power that needs to be dealt with realistically, and sometimes the fight on terror is going to make for strange bedfellows in central Asia. Still, it's pretty tiresome to hear conservatives endlessly extolling George Bush's commitment to democracy when it's clear from his actions that he has no such commitment at all, not even in Iraq. As I've said before, I don't mind the speeches. They sound pretty and they might even do some good. Just don't take them seriously, OK? Posted by Kevin Drum at December 11, 2003 04:36 PM | TrackBackComments
Taiwan? Deserving of little more than random bitch slaps if we feel like it might buy us some help from China over trade deficits and North Korea. I think that's putting the matter too gently. We're so reliant on the Chinese in those areas (and in financing our budget deficit) that they can virtually tell us what to do, whether we think it will "buy us some help" or not. Posted by: Swopa at December 11, 2003 04:49 PM | PERMALINKPakistan- don't forget that the military dictatorship there overthrew a previously democratically elected government. It was a shining example of a majority muslim nation operating as a functioning democracy. Can't have that now, can we? It made me sick when Bush started referring to Musharraf as "President Musharraf". Look for a reference to him by that title before we decided he was our post-9/11 ally- you'll have a hard time finding one, certainly not from a U.S. official. Before that he was General Musharaf, and it was always mentioned that he gained power in a military coup ousting (and imprisoning) democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Bush seems to see democracy abroad as a THREAT, not a boon. Posted by: bryguy at December 11, 2003 04:51 PM | PERMALINKAs a conservative I disagree with the President on this one. China aquired Taiwan in the early 19th (1830ish) century and lost it in 1895. So their historic claim is fairly weak. IMO Tiawan has every right to declare it's independence. Posted by: Norman at December 11, 2003 04:55 PM | PERMALINKIt could be worse. At least the administration has never gloated when democratically elected leaders are overthrown by force. Oh, wait... Posted by: Nevin at December 11, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINK"I'm living in a fool's paradise, Actually, the rhetoric lauding Bush's alleged commitment to overseas democracy is offensive since it serves as propoganda to win him votes. Posted by: DMBeaster at December 11, 2003 05:14 PM | PERMALINKLet's not forget about Latin America. Colombia's just about to pass a new "anti-terror" law. Posted by: chsa at December 11, 2003 05:15 PM | PERMALINKPakistan, right. If we hadn't needed to use them to get to Afghanistan, Pakistan would be a charter member of the axis of evil. Ties to al Qaeda, check; ties to N. Korea, check; attacking neighbors (India), check; WMD's, oh baby, big check. Lucky for them (and us) that they had something we needed, or we'd probably be at war there right now. Posted by: wmr at December 11, 2003 05:22 PM | PERMALINKI'm pleased to be the first in this thread to point out that Bush's actual enthusiasm for democracy has always been tempered by the fact that, if the United States were such a polity, he'd be back in Crawford clearing brush 24-7-365. Posted by: Brian C.B. at December 11, 2003 05:37 PM | PERMALINKAnd don't forget trying to overthrow Venesuala's democratically elected leader, Hugo Chavez, in April 2003! They fucked that up, too. http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/04/14/venezuela/ Posted by: grytpype at December 11, 2003 05:45 PM | PERMALINKwmr, don't forget Pakistan is trying to give Saudi Arabia the Bomb. Posted by: grytpype at December 11, 2003 05:47 PM | PERMALINKNorman: As a conservative I disagree with the President on this one. China aquired Taiwan in the early 19th (1830ish) century and lost it in 1895. So their historic claim is fairly weak. An amazing lot of "conservatives" seem to be ignorant of history. It's amazing because an accurate history should be one of the most important things to conserve, shouldn't it? For your information, Norman, Taiwan officially became a part of China in 1684, during the Qing Dynasty. Unofficially, for much longer than that. Posted by: Clarity at December 11, 2003 05:59 PM | PERMALINKWhat we call Taiwan is the island of Formosa which has an indigenous population that do not consider themselves Chinese. Chang Kai-shek and his nationalists took over the island after being run out of the mainland by Mao. The question of legitimate governments is never as simple as letting people vote. The Taiwanese may belong to China, but the island belongs to the Formosans. Posted by: Bryan at December 11, 2003 06:00 PM | PERMALINKNow, there's nothing necessarily wrong with these positions. Kevin, if you won't take a stand against Uzbekistan as an ally, when we as a nation are spewing rhetoric about "bringing democracy to the world", and admitting that winning "the hearts and minds" of those who would support terrorists is the crucial battle to win, what will you call bullshit on? We've been double-talking so long in America that we take it for granted. It's normal, natural, and not necessarily double-talking. Or something like that. It doesn't matter if Clinton did it too. We have a challenge before us today, and we can do it honestly as a straight-shooter, and earn the admiration and respect of "hearts and minds", or we can continue to lie and obfuscate in such a way that everyone notices and only we and our brutal elitist allies excuse. I'm calling it for what it is. Bullshit. Either we stop lying, stop proclaiming, or we fucking change our MO. We're losing the hearts and minds, and don't even begin to console yourself that evil has struck if violence starts occurring on your street. We have no moral compass in America that is defensible in an open court. Posted by: freelixir at December 11, 2003 06:09 PM | PERMALINKWith that said, we're not in a position to be pushing China around. As for Saudi Arabia, I will NEVER defend rule by a single-digit % over the rest of the populace. Ever. For any reason. We have no military quarrel with them however. We're our own worst enemy by not investing in energy independence and sustainability. They just do what they do, and we enable them. Posted by: freelixir at December 11, 2003 06:15 PM | PERMALINKA few facts and some opinions about Taiwan. -Despite what Bryan says, the non-Chinese population of Taiwan (aborigines) is about 2% -About 80% are ethnic Chinese who's ancestors mostly came over in the Qing period. About 15% are those who came over in 1949 and their kids. All of these groups now intermarry, so these number can be fiddled with. -Do the Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese? That is a tricky one. 20 years ago they certainly did, other than a hard core of Taiwanese (i.e. ethnic Chinese non-mainlanders) who hated the mainlanders who ran things on Taiwan. The clear distinction between a mainlander elite and a Taiwanese majority has not been passed on to the next generation, but there is much more awareness of Taiwanese identity. When I first went to Taiwan in 1989 and asked for something on Taiwan history they said "Yes, we have that book." By 1993 it was a whole section of the bookstore. If Taiwanese identity is a subset of Chinese identity or something independent of it is a topic that you can get Taiwanese to talk about for a long time (Taiwan beer. Yummm.) Even those who consider themselves Chinese have no desire to be ruled by Beijing, however. Posted by: ssuma at December 11, 2003 06:16 PM | PERMALINKNorman, China's claim to the island is weak, but not for the reasons you state. There are enormously strong cultural reasons for considering the nation a part of larger China, not the least of which is that the Nationalists who built the political and material infrastructure were the de facto rulers of all of China before they were driven to the island by the Mao's communists. The People's Republic of China still sees the issue in those terms: their ideological rivals are still alive, kickin' ass in the economic arena, have now shifted to the Western-approved political system of beautiful democracy and they feel threatened. Existentially. What if some unhappy peasants in the heartland get a whiff of the richness in both material and spiritual freedom that their Chinese brethren in Taiwan have? Hence all the bluster, all the missiles, and the persistent isolation of the Republic of China on the international front. China, as we know it as the PRC, has never owned Taiwan, as we know it as the ROC, which is what they both are now. They mix China as a cultural and historical entity (which Chinese on both sides of the Strait share) with political reality to fool Westerners and others who frankly, have no clue (and perhaps could care less). Taiwan, meanwhile, has got a real democracy going on, which means they don't have consensus. They have the equivalent of a Mr. Bush (i.e. elected with "barely" the popular vote) pushing as hard as he can his own agenda (in this case, it's a human rights lawyer promoting an ethnically- and culturally- Taiwanese vision of the island, to the convenient detriment of the opposition Nationalist, who by tradition, are made up of mainlander-escapees of the civil war). All this has Americans, Westerners in general, in a complete fuzz. They either see things in terms of democracy vs. communism or strong economic player vs. future economic power house. Bush, like American presidents before him, would like to side with democracy AND future economic powerhouse, which is good policy. Seen in this light, what he did this week was brilliant. He gave China meat to take home, thus promoting American economic interests in that area, knowing full well that no democratically elected president in Taiwan can politically afford to recall an announced referendum. So, democracy will continue on its march in Taiwan and Chinese-American economic exchange will continue unchanged. A win for American policy. Caveat. The only reason Chinese democracy exists today is because of American help and support. The military protection is no piddling factor -- without it, the ROC would go under in 2 seconds, with a few bubbles to dissipate into the Pacific waves. Thus the American military supports democracy in Taiwan, and the American president (whoever it may be) has enough political flexibility to keep the communists happy. Taiwan shoulders the burden of being an unrecognized democracy, and some existential fear about whether the US will protect it, but at least they've got what Chinese across the Strait don't -- political and economic freedom. Most everyone in Taiwan prefers playing the waiting game -- waiting for the PRC to become democratic. Then reunion can occur. If Americans were smart, they would do this too, with a minimal amount of military violence. President Bush's actions this past week support this. Posted by: B.J. at December 11, 2003 06:22 PM | PERMALINKClarity: For your information, Norman, Taiwan officially became a part of China in 1684, during the Qing Dynasty. Unofficially, for much longer than that.
You can boil me in oil before I'll take a moral stand on our alliance with Uzbekistan. Posted by: John Isbell at December 11, 2003 06:23 PM | PERMALINKI can't believe Bush hasn't managed to solve all the world's problems and fix every country in the world. Posted by: OdysseusInRTP at December 11, 2003 06:29 PM | PERMALINKI can. Easily demonstrated, as zero is less than infinity. Posted by: Canadian Reader at December 11, 2003 06:44 PM | PERMALINKMan, t'was ever thus. America has been real big on talking Democracy (big D), but for the most part, we've never met a dictator we didn't like. On the other hand, we've met PLENTY of democratically elected heads of state that we not only didn't like, we actually deposed them. We've been doing this quite effectively for decades in the back yard (Allende, invading Santo Domingo, Venezuela as a recent example), and fiddling around overseas too (pre-Shah Iran). We might say we want everyone to be free and live in Democracies, but we sure seem to go out of our way to destroy Democracies whenever they rear their little heads. Posted by: Derelict at December 11, 2003 06:51 PM | PERMALINKIn foreign policy, Americans don't like democracy so much as they like being great, which is why we support losers and diss winners. Posted by: Sith at December 11, 2003 07:02 PM | PERMALINKDid Uzbekistan back the war in Iraq? I'm pretty sure they sent a guy with a bomb dog and wrote a check for $153.85. If so, I would have to say that they are our True Friends in the War on Terror and should be rewarded with whatever scraps of contracts remain after Halliburton finishes feeding. I've only been to Taiwan twice but it seems to me that ROC's prosperity is heavily linked to the PRC (much the same as a lot of US corporations), at least on the high tech side of things. Deal with one Taiwanese laptop manufacturer and you will find out that all of their production lines are in Shanghai, while most of the designers are in Taipei. It would take just a few small squeezes on their manufacturing lines to make them scream bloody murder, and, in turn, a lot of large American OEMs like DELL, HP, Apple, Sun, and Intel scream much, much louder. Obviously the PRC wants the dollars the manufacturing brings in but the fact is that the high tech biz is addicted to cheap Chinese labor in much the same way the US is addicted to oil. Expect to see the US give China a 'pass' on these type things in much the same way the Saudis get a 'pass'. If you think it will be any different under a Dem president, all I have to say is "Hah! You're funny when you're drunk. Have another beer." Posted by: Peeing Calvin at December 11, 2003 07:13 PM | PERMALINKI have always enjoyed the fact that the island towers over the mainland in an unmistakeable way. Tiawan has stood out there between two power masses and they have not faltered. But let's face it. Both China and Tiawan get it. On the topic of whether or not residents of Taiwan consider themselves to be Chinese, my experience (with high-school and college age friends who immigrated to the States after being born in Taiwan) is that they do not. They consider themselves Taiwanese, and resent being tied to the Communist mainland. One of my majors is Mandarin; the school is teaching it with a Beijing accent, and my Taiwanese friends give me a hard time for it. Posted by: Z. Acreman at December 11, 2003 07:34 PM | PERMALINKI'm not sure if I missed it or not, but I didn't I recently wrote a blog entry about the issue of Taiwanese independence in which I argue that we should understand this in terms of the local politics in each of the three countries: China, Taiwan, and the US. Posted by: Kerim Friedman at December 11, 2003 07:55 PM | PERMALINKNorman -- you're probably thinking of Okinawa and the Japanese taking it over. Still your overall point about Taiwan/Formosa not being a part of China is somewhat bizarre since the KMT moved their sorry little state over last century. native Formosans are just as dispossesed of their island as the Taiwanese/Chinese are of their mainland. Posted by: Troy at December 11, 2003 07:57 PM | PERMALINKI've haven't put any stock in America's China policy since Congress' craven grovelling towards the Chinese government in the wake of Tiananmen Square, specifically the renewal of MFN status. Addressing the larger point, it seems to me that our commitment to democracy rarely survives a collision course with our business interests; and it appears as if the same is true with our Iraq policy. [Note that I refuse to conflate this with our terrorism policy, Bush Administration rhetoric to the contrary.] Posted by: Anarch at December 11, 2003 07:57 PM | PERMALINKnative Formosans are just as dispossesed of their island as the Taiwanese/Chinese are of their mainland. Any kind words for the Hakka? ;) Posted by: Anarch at December 11, 2003 07:59 PM | PERMALINKcommitment to democracy rarely survives a collision course with our business interests the true polestar in understanding international relations. Once you get this down, everything falls into place. Posted by: Troy at December 11, 2003 08:00 PM | PERMALINKanarch: actually my understanding of Taiwan doesn't really exceed what I learned in college classes of the late 80's, which were still focussed on Chang-era abuses. Posted by: Troy at December 11, 2003 08:02 PM | PERMALINKKevin, As a President remarked, the business of America has always been -- and will always be -- business. Posted by: wc at December 11, 2003 08:11 PM | PERMALINKZ. Acreman: China has always been a multicultural, multiethnic, and multidialect "nation" -- any Taiwanese who thinks of him/herself as a non-Chinese is delusional, and has bought on to the racial politics which is inherent in the American system, and which President Chen, in his divisive politics and policies, continues to promote. Divisiveness is anti-Chinese, and if that's what the "new" Taiwanese want to believe in, more power to them. They're throwing away a rich cultural history in exchange for free market ideals and the empty ideology of human rights, all because they confuse Communists with Nationalists. If you ask them what their values are, they're loathe to tell you -- because they can't come up with a single one that isn't Chinese. They are ashamed and shameful Chinese. Posted by: Storm at December 11, 2003 08:13 PM | PERMALINKStorm- I'm not saying it made sense to me, either. I'm just relaying what they have told me. On the other hand, there's no reason why a culture in which people consider themselves distinctively Taiwanese couldn't have developed over the last fifty years, borrowing heavily from their mainland roots and from Western capitalism. Crazier cultural shifts have happened faster; I refer you to Meiji Japan. Also, I expect if I were to ask their parents the question - "do you consider yourself Chinese or Taiwanese?" - I'd get a different answer. Posted by: Z. Acreman at December 11, 2003 08:32 PM | PERMALINKStorm: What exactly is "empty" about the "ideology of human rights?" Posted by: Rosco at December 11, 2003 08:42 PM | PERMALINKThe US has been ambivalent about the support of democracy in other lands. We will support it if it doesn't conflict with other goals, such as the Cold War or the War against Terrorism. Republicans have a tendency, more than the Democrats, to attribute democratic values to corrupt dictatorships. Dan Quayle praises Augusto Pinochet for his support of democratic values, and Old Man Bush lifts a glass in similar praise to Marcos of the Phillipines. The young Mr. Bush follows that tradition not only in Iraq, but in Palestine where he thinks they can have a democracy only if they choose leaders acceptable to the US and the Israelis. FDR's famous phrase, about Nicaragua's Tacho Samoza: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's out son of a bitch." Posted by: rachelrachel at December 11, 2003 08:49 PM | PERMALINKZ. Acreman -- Yes, I understand. I just hate their snide way of mixing what the Nationalists did for modern Taiwan with the "evil" of the Communists. Their identity is as shallow as consumerism and misbegotten pride. Rosco -- President Chen would like to have all of us believe that being human is exclusive of being Chinese. That is what is empty about "human rights". It denies any values, culture, or history a person may support, understand, embody, or adopt. No, worse -- it doesn't recognize the truth, which is we are not separate from any of those things. It denies any human identity -- according to human rights, any uniqueness we carry is unique to everyone. Some uniqueness. In its mission to subjectify all humans, it objectifies them instead. That's what's empty about human rights. I'm not saying they shouldn't stick around. They've got their uses. They just can't be lived. They can't be applied exclusively of everything else. It's like the debate of rationalism vs love -- which one are you going to choose? What's rational about love? Posted by: Storm at December 11, 2003 08:59 PM | PERMALINKpuginov @ 07:53: I'm not sure if I missed it or not, but I didn't see anyone mention our sincere commitment to democracy in Cuba. 1952:
I'm calling it for what it is. Bullshit. Either we stop lying, stop proclaiming, or we fucking change our MO...We have no moral compass in America that is defensible in an open court. Posted by: -pea- at December 11, 2003 09:03 PM | PERMALINK I don't know, the boiling people kind of bothers me. But maybe I'm just squeamish. Bush doesn't care about democracy here-why would anyone think he cares about it anywhere else? It's just empty rhetoric. Posted by: four legs good at December 11, 2003 09:18 PM | PERMALINKI can see your sadness seeing at consumerism replace real heritage, although as a 24 yr. old WASP it's hard for me to distinguish the two. I really have no culture that is unique to me, as American culture is spread out throughout the world. (I've met Persians who were much more "American" than me.) I agree that most attempts to define human rights have are inherently corrosive to cultural identities, although I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing in itself. What's dangerous (IMO)is these modernist values combined with rampant consumerism of today. Posted by: Rosco at December 11, 2003 09:30 PM | PERMALINKRosco -- Culture is the sunrise and the sunset of humanity whereas "human rights" has the universal beauty, emptiness and coldness of space. I prefer the change and warmth of the sun. Posted by: Storm at December 11, 2003 09:39 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of "Humanism versus Cultural Identity," shouldn't Glenn Reynolds be falling all over himself to praise the French for their brave stand against religous expression? Posted by: Rosco at December 11, 2003 09:55 PM | PERMALINKHe who wills the end, wills the means. The Bush administration is kowtowing to the PRC and several other odious goons because the strategy of the US is to serialize the current larger conflict. Take a tyranny down, occupy, turn over to a viable free government, rebuild the military and repeat. We don't have enough of a military to do all the tyrannies at once, not even if we became a military state (which I most certainly would not want except as a theoretical last ditch emergency effort). So in a real life world where we're limited to fighting one or two conventional wars, we don't want to go over two because the third one could only be won by us with nukes. No president of any party is ever going to want to be pushed into the position of humiliating the US militarily or going nuclear. So we say nice doggie while we reach for a stick. That's a very good version of diplomacy and that's what is going on right now. If you don't like serialization, you're either not serious or you're endorsing a doubling or tripling of the defense budget. We could double our force structure for somewhere around $700 Billion a year and enable us to go to a four war structure. After a decade or two, we might even start running out of bad guys who brutalize their opposition. Wow. What a changed Democrat party! Now me, I'm not so fond of the warfare state that I'd like such a heavy military expansion but I know that the price is appeasement, kowtowing, and playing the diplomatic card while people die at the hands of their own governments. I want to up our force structure so we could handle three medium sized conventional conflicts in a pinch without mass casualties and try to stick to no more than two interventions at a time. Posted by: TM Lutas at December 11, 2003 10:13 PM | PERMALINKTM Lutas, it would be nice for us to actually be able to say "mission accomplished" in regards to a single military operation, let alone two or three. Aside from the epic victories of Grenada, Panama, and Iraq I, what have we really accomplished? At least in terms of this Iraq II mission, and the overall war on terrorism, the overall focus has been winning the hearts and minds of those who would support terrorists. We are failing decisively in that mission, and, especially in a society such as ours, ruled by managers and management theory, this should beg an examination of our tactics, a reevaluation of our strategy, and at the very least, if we won't do that, an honest remaking of our mission statement. Posted by: freelixir at December 11, 2003 10:35 PM | PERMALINKIn other words, what is our brand, and are we doing right by it, or foolishly causing it to suffer by a total lack of integrity and accountability? Posted by: freelixir at December 11, 2003 10:37 PM | PERMALINK"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Bush, Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98) I never want to hear the President saying these things. A president should never even *think* this. He should love Democracy and he should love his place in it. Is Dubya joking? Maybe, but he's brought it up three separate time. There's no doubt he thinks about it. Bush is "Pro-Democracy" in the same way that school children are "Pro-Democracy" on the day they teach democracy in third grade. Posted by: Boronx at December 11, 2003 11:39 PM | PERMALINKI guess I don't see the contradiction in wanting to promote democracy when you can, but realizing that getting into a war with China is a bad thing if you can avoid it. It is kind of funny that the same people who were willing to let Saddam stay in power indefinitely are castigating Bush for not being serious enough about Taiwan. Would you prefer that he piss off the Chinese? What happened to multi-lateralism. We are one of the very few countries that give a shit about Taiwan at all. Shall go with the flow? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 12, 2003 12:08 AM | PERMALINKexcluded middle argument, Sebastian. some consistency would be a nice policy change. Posted by: Troy at December 12, 2003 12:11 AM | PERMALINK"I guess I don't see the contradiction in wanting to promote democracy when you can, but realizing that getting into a war with Iraq is a bad thing if you can avoid it" Glad to see someone talking some sense around here, finally. Posted by: BP at December 12, 2003 02:50 AM | PERMALINKAnd don't anybody dare call Sebastian "objectively pro-fascist" if you don't want a whupping from me. Posted by: BP at December 12, 2003 02:51 AM | PERMALINKthis guy has written a very adept piece detailing the PRC strategy concerning Taiwan: http://www.livinginchina.com/archives/000541.html Posted by: Edgar Snow at December 12, 2003 04:04 AM | PERMALINKShrubco doesn't believe in Democracy in this country! Why should any place else be different. Posted by: Palolo lolo at December 12, 2003 05:02 AM | PERMALINK"Trucks line up for hours trying to get in, but it is no hard task for them to leave empty." It's a minor point, I know, closedanger, but do you really think that people drive trucks from the mainland to Taiwan? There's a piece of ocean in the way . . . Posted by: rea at December 12, 2003 05:27 AM | PERMALINKYeah, any claims that Bushit supports democracy is just pure bu**sh**. Posted by: Johannes at December 12, 2003 05:35 AM | PERMALINKnative Formosans are just as dispossesed of their island as the Taiwanese/Chinese are of their mainland. It's a little weird to here them called "native Formosans" since Formosa is the Portuguese colonial name for the island (derived from the Portuguese word for "beautiful"). What do the native "Formosans" call their island? Posted by: Alex Elliott at December 12, 2003 06:28 AM | PERMALINKThis point seems a little silly. I mean, Clinton was at least as bad
on China as Bush, but I don't question Clinton's committment to
democracy. If I recall correctly, people were criticizing Bush as a
dangerous unilateral cowboy for *excessive* support of Taiwan not too
long ago. More practically, for me the test on Taiwan (and fostering its democracy) has always been whether the President would be willing to go to war against China if necessary to protect Taiwan from attack. I don't trust him 100%, but I have much more faith in Bush to do that than in Clinton, Gore, or any of the current crop of candidates (except maybe Clark). Posted by: J Mann at December 12, 2003 06:51 AM | PERMALINK"Neo-conservatives believe that world democracy and liberalism is good for the US, and believe that it is legitimate to spread democracy and liberalism through military force in some cases." So there's a definitive list of all cases where military force is OK, and all cases where military force is not OK, and neo-cons have both lists. Glad to hear that. I thought the whole shebang this spring about "appeasement" and "axis of weasels" and "Saddam-lovers" was primarily based on hot air and bloviation, and the wish to take the moral high ground with no more trouble than looking up synonyms for "traitor" in a thesaurus. Posted by: BP at December 12, 2003 07:01 AM | PERMALINKKevin, are you opposing revolution in one country, Iraq, versus permanent revolution internationally as the "more principled" position? Sheesh. Where have I heard this before? Awfully brave of you to think that a true commitment to democracy means taking on all comers [gomers?] right now. Posted by: russ e at December 12, 2003 07:41 AM | PERMALINKI wonder if there is a moral difference between defending an existing democracy and defeating a dictator with the option of attempting to make a democracy if it suits us? Posted by: Boronx at December 12, 2003 09:55 AM | PERMALINKIs there a moral difference between defending against an unprovoked invasion and starting our own unproked invasion? Posted by: Boronx at December 12, 2003 09:57 AM | PERMALINK"Republicans have a tendency, more than the Democrats, to attribute democratic values to corrupt dictatorships. Dan Quayle praises Augusto Pinochet for his support of democratic values" Pinochet was responsible for Chile having the only successful economy in South America. It's too bad that Allende had to be ousted but if you read the history of the period leading up to his ouster, it's clear that he was in the midst of his own coup. Pinochet left when he was defeated in an election. Posted by: Mike K at December 12, 2003 10:02 AM | PERMALINKPinochet invigorated the economy? Kind of like another famous dictator. What was his name again? Thank goodness we have our priorities straight. Posted by: Boronx at December 12, 2003 10:54 AM | PERMALINKI know some Taiwanese immigrants who voted for Bush solely because he said we would stand up for Taiwan against China. Now that he has reverted to the one China policy, they can't be too happy. Another Bush lie--at least Clinton never gave them false hope. Posted by: Matt at December 12, 2003 11:07 AM | PERMALINKWhy is it so hard to believe that Bush is bringing a real change to foreign policy. Because he set out to do something, and the world didn't change overnight? Well, here's news: status quo politics is deeply ingrained in the USG bureaucracies of State and the intelligence agencies. It's going to take a while to shake off those old raiments. It would be interesting to see someone attempt to defend any foreign policy action of Bush's as being not directed toward the stated goals. Is Iraq worse off? Afgh? Are Saudi, Syria, Iran, and N.Korea under more or less pressure for reform than 4 years ago? Posted by: newsynthesist at December 12, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINK"Pinochet was responsible for Chile having the only successful economy in South America. It's too bad that Allende had to be ousted but if you read the history of the period leading up to his ouster, it's clear that he was in the midst of his own coup. Pinochet left when he was defeated in an election." Jeez, talk about your historical revisionism. Whether Pincohet actually played any role in economic improvement is debatable--many would argue that the economy improved despite his policies, not because of them. Allende leading his own coup? He was the elected president, and unlike Pinochet, hadn't killed anyone or abandoned democratic means. But since he was a Marxist, you guys on the right know he MUST have been plotting a coup. The bottom line with Pinochet is that he was a brutal mass murderer. If you think he's a representative of democracy, you have a peculiar notion of what democracy means. Posted by: rea at December 12, 2003 11:25 AM | PERMALINK"Is Iraq worse off? Afgh? Are Saudi, Syria, Iran, and N.Korea under more or less pressure for reform than 4 years ago?" Too soon, to tell, too soon to tell, no, no, no, and no. Posted by: rea at December 12, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINKIt would be interesting to see someone attempt to defend any foreign policy action of Bush's as being not directed toward the stated goals. Is Iraq worse off? Afgh? Are Saudi, Syria, Iran, and N.Korea under more or less pressure for reform than 4 years ago? The stated goals are, to my knowledge, "winning hearts and minds" and "bringing democracy". We are not winning hearts and minds. We are losing them in a big way. We are now officially afraid of Iraqi democracy, since it is looking more and more to be illiberal and Shiite-dominated. As for "pressure", please provide clearer examples of this pressure, in terms of goals stated, and also indicate whether you have considered that we could be much further along our goals, and in applying "pressure", had we not clusterfucked in Iraq (and I mean "after" we got there...not even considering whether we should have gone when we did or not). Posted by: freelixir at December 12, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINKThis post raises a very good point, which I was thinking about recently. Also check out Pieter's article from last September on "Foreign Policy Hypocrisy." The foreign policy of Washington certainly does seem to be hypocritical. While some of this is due to changing administrations, our leaders need to correct the misdoings and missteps that they've taken, and focus on defending our country and our people. Posted by: Aakash at December 12, 2003 09:15 PM | PERMALINKNewsynthesist said: The Iraq invasion was deemed necessary in order to remove an
intolerable threat to the security of the US and its allies. After no
weapons of mass destruction were found, Wolfowitz admitted that the plan
to "democratize" Iraq was the true purpose of the operation but
insisted that such a goal went to the heart of why Iraq was a threat to
the security of the US and its allies. "Not only is Uzbekistan not nearly on the same plane as Hussein's Iraq in the human rights realm, it is also the type of country that is receptive to engagement. I often hear the complaint that the US is not as critical of Uzbekistan as it needs to be. Karimov does not respond well to criticism at all, and I think that the State Department is well aware of and sensitive to. Uzbekistan is the kind of country that engagement can work in, Iraq was not. If you've been reading me for a while, you've heard me say a few times that we can see a handful of results of behind the scenes pressure from the US. Now I have this (via Oxblog) for you: The proliferating Uzbek-American relations, especially in the
areas of military assistance in the war in Afghanistan but also in terms
of significant economic cooperation, now bind Karimov?s administration
more tightly to its commitments to enhance the country?s human rights
record. This includes commitments to reduce censorship over the activity
of the mass media and other civic organizations, as well as providing
the grounds for political pluralism. Nevertheless, until recently, the
situation in the country with regard to liberalization of politics and
economy saw little progress. "UPDATE: In the past few days, the US has publicly chastized Uzbekistan on its human rights record." Here's one link detailing remarks. Posted by: linden at December 13, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINKAlso, antagonizing Pakistan is a bad idea since they have y'know nukes and a huge number of jihadis within their borders. Frankly, I find most of the criticism in this thread to be patently ridiculous. Yes, pushing for democracy is good but in order to get what you want you sometimes have to be practical. Needlessly antagonizing Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and a whole bunch of other countries would do NOTHING to help this situation and nothing to further democracy in Iraq or any other country. It would just hurt us even more and hurt the Iraqi people. Posted by: linden at December 13, 2003 09:52 AM | PERMALINKJimmy Carter -- supporter of democracy abroad -- who recently
regretted that he was unable to bring about a "final solution" for the
only democracy in the Middle East. The Taiwanese people don't even believe that President Chen is a principled supporter of democracy: "More than 40 percent of those surveyed in the poll said that they were opposed to Chen's call for a defensive referendum, while 49.8 percent said they thought the referendum call was a strategy of Chen's to improve his re-election chances. Only 29.6 percent said they believed the referendum was a result of Chen's determination to protect Taiwan's sovereignty." http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/12/14/2003079476 Posted by: Digitaal at December 14, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKA room without books is like a body without a soul. Posted by: Barrett Bill at January 19, 2004 10:10 PM | PERMALINKVirtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors. Posted by: Sanner Paul at March 17, 2004 04:14 PM | PERMALINKFor every action there is an equal and opposite government program. Posted by: Kim Stan at May 2, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKA stopped car does not imply a dead driver. Posted by: Geist Morgan at May 3, 2004 12:08 AM | PERMALINKYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://arthritis.bcure.com/ Hardcore Interracial - Hardcore Amateur Movies - Hardcore Digital - Hardcore Maidens - Hentai Studios - Hirsute Honeys - Horny Home Maker - India Exposed - Insane Orgy - Just Toons - Mature Touch - Mature dames - Massive Mammories - Ladies Secret - Lickin Lovers - Lesbian Bordello - Legs N Feet - Latina Fetish - Raw Sex Videos Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 21, 2004 11:49 PM | PERMALINKEvery decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. Posted by: Pincus Paul at June 30, 2004 05:41 AM | PERMALINKthick pussy - gay porn - hgh pro formula - igf2 - lesbianlessons - nasty tranny - real big babes - rectal rooter - tranny hookers - tranny hunt - tranny treats Posted by: big naturals at June 30, 2004 07:22 PM | PERMALINK2025 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 11:16 PM | PERMALINK7670 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 4088 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 06:25 PM | PERMALINK6111 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 08:52 PM | PERMALINK7814 you can buy tramadol online. http://www.tramadol.owns1.com Posted by: tramadol at August 11, 2004 05:49 AM | PERMALINK2041 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: Viagra at August 14, 2004 12:12 AM | PERMALINK2646 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 10:54 PM | PERMALINK560 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 10:58 PM | PERMALINK5072 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: blackjack at August 16, 2004 10:59 PM | PERMALINK3105 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 2025 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:48 AM | PERMALINK4512 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:57 AM | PERMALINK4055 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 8877 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 02:12 AM | PERMALINK7021 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:38 AM | PERMALINK3688 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 09:11 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 |
||||
