A recent speech by UK foreign minister Jack Straw raised some interesting issues. Namely with the supposedly increasing popularity of democratic institutions in the Middle East there have come some unusual political dynamics.



I will post the bit I noticed most separately.

Straw democracy speech in full

So...
Is Jack Straw right in saying that many on the Left have allowed partisanship to replace the true goals of Liberalism in promoting democracy?

Have liberal policies been replaced with liberal politics?

Is the spread of democracy and human rights the best hope in the struggle against terrorism? Is it a worthy goal?

Does this require the US and EU to work closely together?

What are the main obstacles to this cooperation and how can they be overcome?

Is Jack Straw right in saying that many on the Left have allowed partisanship to replace the true goals of Liberalism in promoting democracy?

I completely disagree with this, not because of what he is saying but because he is suggesting that violence and war are the only ways to promote democracy in other countries. This is a very similiar topic to the "What if Bush was right?" topic that Aquilla started recently.

The implicit assumption here is that war or some sort of armed conflict is the only way to promote Democracy and since liberals have a strong anti-war faction that must mean they are against Democracy! Those treasonist fools! That is a completely bogus suggestion and assumption because promoting Democracy is not done solely through military force, nor is it even the best (or right) way to do it. Military action is a tool in the toolbox, it is not the only tool.

Have liberal policies been replaced with liberal politics?
No, see my answer above.

Is the spread of democracy and human rights the best hope in the struggle against terrorism? Is it a worthy goal?
No. Democracy by itself means absolutely nothing. Democracy is a style of government that involves having established laws and voting for officials to run the government. There is nothing to stop a country from voting in officials that the United States does not agree with and that are sympathetic to terrorist causes.

This is one of those neo-con assumptions that if we bring them Democracy they'll love us for it. It is summarized perfectly by this quote by Richard Perle:


The only way to truly fight terrorism is to combat the root causes of it. Democracy in an of itself does nothing to fix those root causes nor do all the bombs in the world we can drop.

Terrorism exists because of economic and cultural reasons. I believe that someone cited in another thread that Saudi Arabia has a 30% unemployment rate. This is a very familiar statistic for many of the countries in the middle east that we consider to be terrorist hotbeds. There is a huge gap between rich and poor in these countries and there simply aren't very many opportunities for the youth in the population. This makes for a ripe breeding ground for terrorists to come in and recruit these young men and women for their organizations. By providing them with income, security and a purpose they win them over. Just look at what happens plainly and openly in Palestine. The government cannot provide for the people and the terrorists do, as a result terrorism is something that is widely supported.

The second reason is cultural. In most middle eastern countries religion makes up a huge component of the laws and societal customs. Religious leaders are highly respected, even more so than politicians in many cases. In the same way that people get suckered in to believing ridiculous things in this country under the guise of religion the same happens in the middle east. Combined with the economic factors you have a deadly combination.

In my opinion the way you combat that is to work on changing the economic situation and changing the cultural situation. As far as changing the cultural situation goes, that does not in any way mean that Islam is a bad religion or that these people have to adopt western values. What it means is that the religious leadership in and the teachers need to start actively speaking out against terrorism and promoting progressive (relative to them) practices to combat it.

Does this require the US and EU to work closely together?
I believe that there is something the US and the EU can do about the economic factors but it is a complicated situation. Care needs to be taken that we aren't exploiting these countries economically, but rather partnering with them.

Regarding the cultural changes, there is absolutely nothing we can do about that and any attempts to do something here will only be taken badly.

Where in the speech did Straw suggest this? He made note of a number of examples in reform that did not involve war.

...and he pointedly avoided giving all the credit to Western actions. He praised Al-Jazeera's effect repeatedly.


True, but how often does this happen?

Straw's point was that ordinary people have nothing to gain from terrorism so when power is placed in the people's hand (Democracy) they will vote for those who best serve their interest.

He included some reasoning in his speech which makes perfect sense. Just as drug use flourishes in poverty, terrorism flourishes in oppression. This is because people in non-democratic states do not often see examples of their rulers dealing with situations peacefully.


Jack Straw is hardly a neo-con

..and you missed his point. The point is not promotion democracy in exchange for gratitude. Again, where in the speech do you get this idea?

The only way to truly fight terrorism is to combat the root causes of it. Democracy in an of itself does nothing to fix those root causes nor do all the bombs in the world we can drop.

Straw mentioned this as well, noting that the Middle East receives very little foreign investment which could boost their economies.

The problem is that giving this aid is difficult when dealing with oppressive regimes. The money is rarely well spent, and there's always the concern it will be used improperly.

Again Democracy poses a solution.


Religion is not necessarily an obstacle to democracy. In Iraq for example Ayatollah Sistani has been extremely helpful in promoting democratic solutions.


I disagree, changing the political situation will allow for changes in the economic and cultural factors not the other way around.

Turkey for example, even the US needed time to change culturally in order to become the kind of democracy it is today.

...but democratic institutions were the foundations for that change.

It is implied by the way you phrased your questions and the circumstances we are talking about here (Iraq).


He is still wrong, people absolutely do not vote for those that serve their best interests, one doesn't even have to look any further than the United States political process to see that Turnea

We could really have an entire topic discussing this but here are just a few examples:
- In the Bankruptcy Thread I edited my last post to show a very interesting statistic on bankruptcy filings by state. The top 10 states with the most filings (and the people that will be hurt most) are solidly Republican, yet it is the Congressional Republicans which are driving this bill through.
- I have been reading a fascinating book lately titled, What's the Matter with Kansas?, and Kansas (today anyway) is about as solidly Republican as you can get (and not the moderate kind the nutball gays are the bain of society kind). The people rail about the problems in their state (there are numerous examples), yet they are problems put in place because of the Republican agenda.

People absolutely do not vote in their best interests Turnea. Those of us here on AD might, but the majority of America does not, they vote on other factors. If we are supposed to be the shining and perfect example of a Democracy, do you really think a feldgling Democracy would get it right?

If this is what Mr. Straw thinks, he is disconnected from reality.

If they had Democratic elections in Palestine tomorrow, do you really think they'd elect someone that wasn't sympathetic to terrorism?


I disagree with this viewpoint of things. Terrorism does not flourish because of oppression. There have been instances where terrorism sponsoring states are oppressive but it is not a causal relationship. If your reasoning held true please explain why some of the most oppressed countries in the world such as North Korea, China, and several countries in Africa aren't crashing planes into American buildings and setting off suicide bombs.

You are taking a situation that exists in the middle east for some nations and trying to tie it to terrorism. The reasons for doing this are so that we can justify military action saying "if we remove the oppression then terrorism will cease to exist".

The reasons terrorism exists are much closer to what I laid out in my post.


Democracy doesn't solve the problem Turnea, it merely opens the door. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that Afghanistan is now a Democracy, I don't hear much about foreign investors rushing over there to invest in the country and help the people rise up economically.

I will grant you that dealing with oppressive regimes is a problem when trying to stimulate economic growth, but simply installing a Democracy and being done with it isn't a solution and there are other ways to approach the problem.

As a perfect example, we can look at China. I don't think you'll find very many countries more oppressive and with bigger human rights violations. They are one of the last communist countries yet we have a very strong trade relationship with them. This proves it is not impossible to have an economic relationship with an oppressive regime.


I didn't say it was, I said it was one of the key ways to combat terrorism at its core. Democracy does nothing to combat terrorism directly, it is not some catchall fix that can be applied universally with the desired results. As I have said repeatedly it is a tool not a solution.

How is it implied in the way I phrased my questions? They make no mention of war.

Iraq is one of the circumstances we are talking about. Including it does not mean I or Straw suggest war is the only way to promote democracy.

That is a strawman argument.


People do not always vote in their interests. Pointing out exceptions does not invalidate the rule of thumb

To be more specific, people usually vote their perceived interests. Again, most Arabs do not perceive terrorism as being in their interests.


They did have elections in Palestine and they DID elect someone unsympathetic to terrorism (Mahmoud Abbas).


Not all terrorism is against the US. In many of these African countries oppression engenders terrorism against other Africans, Zimbabwe for instance in no stranger to terrorism.

You are right in suggesting oppression is not the only cause of terrorism, but I never said that. Just as poverty isn't the only cause of drug use.

Terrorism benefits from oppression and an object of hatred real or manufactured. That and North Korea doesn't allow people to leave, which makes terrorism against the US difficult.


There is some, more than under the Taliban certainly. Democracy does open the door, this is true. It is not the totality of the solution but it is the best foundation.


Not impossible, but practically and morally difficult. Of course we don't exactly fear terrorism from China we are not the object of their hatred. They likely hate Japan more than us and of course China has a very capable conventional military so Chinese feel less helpless. They would likely look upon a car bomb with disdain. Not that this is particularly good either (ask Taiwan).


Very well, a very important tool one which enables far better use of other tools you have mentioned.

Promoting it is still a worthy goal.

Yes, that's the reason why those on the left are losing popularity, it isn't so much that people are in love with the right, it's just the lesser of the two evils currently. The left, in general, has been so busy not being George Bush, they haven't been anyone. Perhaps if they spoke up and actually stated what they stood for in a calm, rational, sane way, they'd be in better shape right now.

To quote George Washington,

I think so...But only if it is coupled with the hunting down and irradication of the terrorists that do exist.

Require...that's such a...binding word. I don't think it requires them to work together, but it sure would be easier if they did. But as I said, we should not be afraid to go it alone [as if we would be ]

Ummm, Europe and the US aren't exactly tight right now. And when I say Europe, I mean to say what everyone means to say when they say Europe, that being France, Germany and England. We'll have to convince Germany and France to help us out [which is disgusting, "Hey, do you think you can please help us out in protecting the Western World, of which you are an all to large part, from terrorism...pretty please, with chocolate covered croissants on top?"]. Again, we don't need these countries, but it would be easier with help.

CP

That's pretty much the impression I get as well.

I consider myself a liberal, but it seems these days liberal means anti-Bush reactionary. If anyone is excited about the prospect of promoting democracy abroad it should be liberals!

Fine, disagree with the methods, but I've seen a lot of disagreement with a goal that nearly defines "worthy cause."


I suppose so. Certainly the US is capable of going it alone on the military end, but on the diplomatic and economic challenges to promoting democracy it seems to me a great deal of damage is done when Europeans let there opposition to the Iraq war bleed over into more benign policy.

I think we do need at least some of Europe to help in these goals. That said we have been getting some degree of cooperation.

France in Lebanon, Germany in Afghanistan, the UK everywhere.

..but it could be more widespread.

I'd like to point out that it is not only the "neo-cons" (my favorite meaningless buzzword) or their allies who have pointed out that American involvement in the region if getting results.


For Bush, a Taste of Vindication in Mideast
I've misplaced another link by a middle eastern analyst which gives credit to Western actions.

Again, it's not just conservatives. Liberals in the west have allowed themselves to become blinded by politics. It has gone from Anybody-but-Bush to Anything-except-what-Bush-proposes.

It is an irrational, reactionary path that will only harm policy.