|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
A
Dangerous World In Part I of this two-part piece I discussed where I believe the Democratic Party (and its most liberal supporters) missed the boat on national security and foreign policy. In this part, I propose what the Party's approach should be in the future. National Security Policy Civil rights
on the one hand and personal and economic security on the other
constitute the key balancing factors in determining national security
policy. It
would be a stretch to think that our security could magically be preserved in the
post-9/11 environment without even minimal impact on our civil
rights. The question really is what compromises on civil rights we should accept,
especially if the terrorist threat within our borders is likely to
remain for some time to come. While I do not have the legal background
to enunciate the exact compromises that may be possible, it is clear
to me that there are numerous people in this country who do. What the
Democratic Party needs to do is bring together the best minds in the
country (representing various perspectives) to a Civil Rights and
National Security workshop, with the express objective of developing a
workable policy that might be a more acceptable alternative to the
provisions of the Patriot Act. That step
alone would bring more people in the country closer to the Party for
it would signify that the Democratic Party: We believe that would be a major step forward for the Party to win the support of Independents, Democrats and potentially even Republicans who may have lurched away from it of late. Balancing Factors in Foreign Policy and Implications for the Left/Democrats As we highlighted in Part I, today's geopolitical tensions requires the Left and the Democrats to ask fundamental questions to re-evaluate their principles and concomitant implications. A commitment to human rights and to American security around the globe demands a foreign policy that is consistent with the realities of today's world. The notion of balance is fundamental in every aspect of life as Nature or God intended, and that balance must also apply to U.S. Foreign Policy. A passive no-interference policy and a unilateral constant interference policy would bracket the two undesirable extremes. The truth today (as I write this in early November 2002) is that President Bush 's approach may not be the best to many but at least it is half-right (in terms of forcing Saddam's hand and the U.N.'s hand), as opposed to the Democrats' version of foreign policy, which is largely weak. It is my view that apart from the obvious need to preserve American security, we should not compromise on the drive to improve human rights, democracy and the quality of life around the globe, for the latter is inextricably linked to the former. For example, if it is true that unemployment (especially in Islamic countries) is a principal cause of hate against the U.S., then we must invest appropriately in improving economies (such as in Afghanistan today and perhaps Iraq tomorrow) to increase our long-term security and human rights influence, while likely benefiting from the economic growth in those nation states. This would not be significantly different from our approach in the post World War II timeframe, in Europe and Japan. Clearly, economic improvements go hand in hand with the ability to control population growth - hence the latter should be strongly encouraged. Ultimately, an effective foreign policy today should take into account two competing factors - a U.S. desire to encourage countries around the world to adopt its human rights, legal and free market principles while keeping America secure, juxtaposed against the desire of those countries to resist American or Western legal and cultural "universalism" at all costs and to avoid adopting potential economic models intrinsically favoring the West. Understanding and exploiting this conflict of desires has to be the foundation for any successful foreign policy. Long-term (as opposed to short-term) American security should be the foremost guide in our foreign policy and acting contrary to that principle will result in no cessation of the hate for the U.S. in many corners of the world. Unilateralism vs. Multilateralism The question of how one may best attain American security globally at the lowest cost - i.e., would it be via a unilateralist approach or a multilateralist one - is easily answered in several different ways. We may be rich, but we are not *that* rich to fund one war after another, presumably aimed at democratizing one nasty regime after another. Even if we are rich now, we add tremendous long term security risks and costs by going into conflicts unilaterally. If we can use the medium of the U.N., then we could potentially share costs, responsibilities and accountability. Moreover, in a world with growing civilizational tensions, the U.S. would be making a grave mistake by alienating its closest allies, whose help we might need in the future. The most important argument in favor of
multilateralism by default, and unilateralism as an exception, is the
following. For those of us who are no experts in foreign policy,
a bottom-up view of the theory of unilateralism is probably in order.
How would my neighbor like it if I controlled the town and decided to
shift my weight around under the gentle "persuasion" of my
power? ("You know what 'Jim', you better sell me the goods for
50% less, or else you're not going to do business with anyone in this
town"). As trite as it sounds, within the U.S.
we all live together as its citizens or residents, with a pact
(defined by the laws of the land) to share the resources of the
country for the good of all. Those who flout those laws are condemned
to prison (at least most of the time). The states of this country have
agreed to remain together as one because of a defined set of
laws allowing mutual benefit from being part of the union called the
United States. Indeed, competing businesses agree to follow mutually
acceptable laws not because they love competition, but because
it is in their common interest to legally allow a competitor to
survive since they might be the underdog in a new market sometime in
the future. U.S. companies have global alliances routinely
regardless of the fact that their revenues might sometimes exceed the
GDP of the countries they do business in, because they understand the
need for local partners or alliances to successfully market and sell
their products to local citizens. At the same time, I cannot dismiss unilateralism outright. Exertion of power unilaterally could be reserved for use in extenuating circumstances to protect ourselves and innocent masses from current or future harm. For instance, if the U.N. does not perform the role of a global policeman (as I believe it should, at least on critical issues), we need not sit unmoved and forget our own security or that of helpless people across the globe. There is a moral dimension to staying uninvolved, as much as there is a moral dimension to getting involved in another country's affairs. Hypothetically, if my kind neighbor is getting robbed, raped or threatened with a gun and the police of the city are unwilling to step in and help, should I sit back and relax, or try and find some way to step in and help her? If wives (or children) don't report their abusive husbands (or parents), even at high risk to their own lives, should bystanders, neighbors or even police remain uninterested under the philosophy of "non-intervention"? As these examples show, notions of interference which don't even apply within civilized nations in serious circumstances, could erroneously be applied to rogue leaders or nations where legal protections may be minimal to none. Indeed, a mere lack (on paper) of legal caveats to national sovereignty does not switch off the moral imperative of involvement or "interference" in certain situations. Thus, just as "interference" is legally allowed in civilized societies for the most extreme of circumstances, strong action with a unilateralist inclination should be reserved, if needed, for the most critical of situations but not as a matter of routine foreign policy. Contemplating the balance between unilateralism and multilateralism obviously leads to the realization that the lesser the power and will of the U.N. to act against rogue states, the more we may be forced into unilateralism. Indeed, it would be foolish to not acknowledge that the world is imperfect, with some constituents (countries or groups) that will choose to defy the laws of the U.N., even if we choose to abide by them. Such countries may even endanger or take the lives of U.S. citizens in the future. But we need to remember in our emotionally charged moments that such a situation is no different than what law abiding individuals inside the U.S. face from criminals and powerful, yet evil, individuals. Do we as individuals go around as vigilantes, enacting revenge lawlessly every time? We don't (most of the time); we use appropriate courts and that is why we call ourselves a civil society. We live together fully acknowledging the imperfections of our laws, our lives and our country, because of the belief that ultimately more good comes out of it than harm, especially in contrast to an uncivil lawless society. Put another way, at the global level we have put a stake in the ground that we are fighting on behalf of the civilized world. That is a noble cause, but it carries with it the responsibility of acting civilized at a global level, not just within our borders. Thus, the lesser we use the forum of the U.N. to address disputes or conflicts, the more we set it up for failure in the future. Allowing our (or any) country to routinely flout internationally accepted laws would end up being no different in principle to allowing states, corporations or individuals within our country to flout laws inside the U.S., whenever convenient. Balancing War and Peace: a New Democratic Party? As much as we may be tempted to
think of ourselves as invincible, we must remember that all the
"bunker busters" or cruise missiles did not protect us
against 9/ 11, and we have to avoid setting ourselves up for
more hate as we learn how to prevent another 9/11
from ever occurring. The only way to accomplish the latter is through
principled friendships and intelligent partnerships, not unilateralist
leanings without realizing how non-unilateral our approach has
been post 9/ 11. What the Democratic Party needs to
do then is balance war and peace. Preventing wars would be easier if
we had a reliable global justice system that would allow rogue nations
or leaders to be prosecuted more easily. While the International
Criminal Court /Court of Justice exists, what it lacks often is the
teeth to police the world. The Party therefore must emphasize the need
for a strong global justice system to
the American people, with reasonable laws, and point out that we will never
get such a system if we go down the path of unilateralism by default. Just as all
countries had much weaker laws decades or centuries ago, the world has
weak global laws today. Just as individual countries used their
legislators to build their legal structures over decades, we should
use the U.N. to build the legal framework of the world at large.
Fundamentally, making the multilateralist approach more
powerful requires us to empower the United Nations (that the U.S.
co-founded post World War II) instead of weakening it. Whether it is
the anti-ballistic missile treaty or the Kyoto (environmental)
protocol, we need to work together with the rest of the world by
compromising on pennies today to gain the dollars of tomorrow from
strong worldwide growth, prosperity and the higher security for
Americans that comes with it. That is the message the Democratic Party
could have communicated to the American people in 2002 and did not. Communicating such a message requires not just the Democratic Party, but its most liberal base, to wake up to a world where security issues can neither be swept under the carpet nor simply addressed through protest rallies alone. It calls for a fundamental re-evaluation of the meaning of compassion and an injection of balance by using American strength to build a new, more benevolent world order. The more the base of the party drags it away from the reality of today's world, the less likely it will be that the Party will remain relevant in today's world. Although John Judis and Ruy Teixeira recently opined (Salon.com) that the United States is heading towards an emerging Democratic majority, they were smart enough to note that the emergence of this majority could be delayed by global security issues which favor Republicans. That only goes to show that even optimistic Democratic supporters innately realize the most basic weakness of the Democratic Party. I strongly urge all Democratic Congressmen,
Senators and Party supporters to ensure that their voices not simply
remain the echoes of the
Democratic Party of the past. While the economy is an important issue
(as important as war and security), the lack of a compelling story on
National Security and Foreign Policy could undermine the Democratic
Party's prospects for a long time to come. Our advice: Middle-East Policy This article would be incomplete if I did not address the most likely flashpoint of anti-U.S. global conflict for the foreseeable future - the Middle East. This region should therefore get more immediate focus rather than less. The focus should involve the following steps. 1. The Democratic Party leadership needs to work with both Israelis and Palestinians to resolve the contentious issue of Israeli settlements, while simultaneously repelling suicide attacks from Islamic terrorists. The message needs to be got across to American citizens that the best way to avoid perpetual war (and associated economic costs, security risks and lives) is to reach a settlement which addresses the grievances from both sides that are valid. I believe that clarity will be better achieved by focusing on the validity of the grievances rather than solely reacting to the murderous approach of Palestinian suicide bombers. It is obvious that Palestinians will not get a better life through suicide bombing. If they have not learnt it by now, they will never learn it. But that does not mean that it is in the interest of the taxpayers and citizens of the United States and Israel to continuously spend tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in weaponry every year for fighting terrorists, at significant economic cost domestically, when an actual solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem will cost far less. The valid concern of U.S. and Israeli leaders (and citizens) is that a negotiated settlement in the absence of a total stop in suicide bombing might send a signal that compromises can be forced via suicide bombing. It is indeed possible that such a message might be taken by other Middle-Eastern terrorists. (To be realistic, though, is there anyone who really believes that suicide bombing or warring is going to decrease over time under the current means of engagement?) Regardless, one possible approach to avoid giving the impression of being soft on suicide bombers would be to interact only with leading non-violent spokespersons on the Palestinian side to address their valid grievances, while imprisoning and prosecuting terrorists. One could also make the prosecution of key terrorist cells part of any deal that is brokered. Ultimately, Americans and Israelis have a choice - do they want a perpetual war that they will win in the long term (number of years yet to be determined), but at a cost that would make their lives much less livable and enjoyable during that time (owing to the economic and security/civil rights costs)? Or do they want a solution that will make everyone happier and set up a path for greater mutual prosperity in the years to come? 2. The Democratic Party has to reorient the country to emphasize higher fuel efficiency and alternative energies - and significantly reduce our dependence on oil (and fossil fuels in general). No other party is in a better position to do this in a balanced manner than the Democratic Party. Any party closer to the ends of an ideological spectrum will be unable to spearhead a gradual transition from a fossil-fuel economy to a greener economy. As we gradually extract our oil footprint from the Middle-East, two competing effects are likely. Lower petrodollars heading to the Middle East implies less money for terrorists to engage in mass murder. At the same time, economic turmoil due to lower oil revenues might incite more social unrest. The latter, however, can be balanced by appropriate funding for humanitarian aid, education, and democracy (nation) building. It is easy to forget that as defense expenditures drop, more funds will become available for aid. Happier people have lower incentives (greater costs) to get themselves into war and conflict. 3. Weapons of mass destruction: This
map from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shows the
nuclear arms risk situation in the world today. Although this map
shows the high risk countries to be Iran, Iraq, Libya and North Korea,
some risks to the United States in the future are also likely to arise
from nukes from Pakistan, China and the former Soviet Union, as we
explain below.
These risks could be partly addressed as follows: It must be remembered that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will continue even if we continue our current foreign policy. As more and more countries in the Middle-East react to a perception of growing American power, influence and belligerence, without the balancing actions of humility, economic aid and democracy (nation) building, there is likely to be more, not less efforts to gain weapons of mass destruction. The more we demonstrate that we will aid in building economically and politically stable democracies in the Middle East, the lower our future risks. In this context, it is indeed very disturbing that the international community continues to drag its feet on funding Afghanistan's reconstruction costs, thereby risking setting that country up for a repeat of what has happened there for decades. Securing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) also requires a major commitment from the U.S. to sign up to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons reductions in order to get verifiable, matching reductions from other countries. I happen to think somewhat naively that the lower the WMD in the world, the harder it is statistically for terrorists to find some. |
