A Proposal for a New Progressive Foreign Policy Posted by Shadi Hamid

Here's Part II of my American Prospect article on the future of progressive foreign policy. Where in Part I I talked about the "vision gap," in part II, I attempt to close it, by proposing a new way of conceptualizing democracy promotion and its place in US policy. I'm really curious about what Democracy Arsenal readers (i.e. you) think about some of these issues. Here's an excerpt:

The progressive approach to democracy promotion is distinguished by a fundamental realization that democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint. The United States can, however, effectively pressure Arab governments to democratize by making economic and military aid conditional on a pre-established set of markers emphasizing freedom of expression, free elections, and the rights of opposition groups. In practice, this would mean telling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan, and others that if they do not get serious about political reform, the United States will get serious about slashing foreign aid. For governments that demonstrate a willingness to change, a comprehensive package of incentives will be offered. A successful democracy promotion policy consists of more than just a statement of intent. It requires a sustained commitment, clear objectives, and detailed policy prescriptions tailored for each country’s particular needs and challenges.

Democracy promotion should no longer be viewed as one policy instrument among many. Rather, a democracy-centric foreign policy will provide an integrated approach that will, in turn, clarify other important U.S. objectives:

War on Terrorism. Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. When people are unable to express their grievances through a legitimate, responsive political process, they are more likely to resort to political violence and terrorism. Islamic extremism feeds upon humiliation, or what Tom Friedman has called “the poverty of dignity.” Arabs can reclaim their dignity only through a democratic process that treats them as citizens with rights, rather than subjects whose sole obligation is to obey. Only with the promise of a democratic future can the Middle East break free of the economic, cultural, and political malaise that has, for decades, fueled the rise of religious extremism. Promoting Moderate Islam. Political reform leads to religious reform, not the other way around. Islamic thought and practice has been stifled by an undemocratic atmosphere in which Muslims are not exposed to the full diversity of opinions on issues of importance. Democracy, as Madeleine Albright argues in “A Realistic Idealism,” will “create a broader and more open political debate within Arab countries, exposing myths to scrutiny and extreme ideas to rebuttal.” In free societies, Arab liberals will finally be allowed to organize politically and communicate their ideas to a larger audience.

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

A brilliant fusion of hysteria, unfounded speculation, moral fanaticism and idealism.

"...we will, today, wage a war on the twin perils of tyranny and terrorism; and we will not stop until we have won."

Given that tyranny is as ancient as humankind, and likely to be with us far into the future, this sounds like a declaration of perpetual war. But who knows ... maybe people will buy it.

[David Tomlin]

'A Democratic president in 2008 must make a new case to the world, that we made a mistake in invading Iraq the way we did, that we betrayed our ideals in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib, but that the cause of Iraqi democracy remains a just one that deserves -- rather, demands -- the international community’s participation.'

Oh, please. The world isn't bailing us out no matter how humbly we beg. This is no more 'reality based' than any of Bush's nonsense.

[libertarian soldier]

"Over the long-term, the responsibilities of government are likely to privilege pragmatism over ideology, practicality over posturing." We have to get to the long term, first. Are you saying we can do so by dealing with the democratically elected Hamas and (reasonably democraticly) appointed Hezballah politicians, not to mention the quasi-democratically elected leaders in Iran?
"The more people hate us, the more easily they can be convinced to take up arms against us and our allies." Wasn't your heroine Madeline Albright running diplomacy and wasn't the Democratic President "hands-on" in the MEPP when the embassies were taken down, the Cole was attacked, and the planning for 9/11 initiated? To my simple infantry mind, lots of people already hated us plenty before Bush 43 was inaugurated.
"Along the way, we will make mistakes; this is fine as long as we admit them readily." And who in the Democratic Party in the last 25 years--including today--has demonstrated any willingness to admit blind support of Israel might be a mistake?
"progressives in power, while likely proving to be competent managers of an interdependent world, will fail to inspire it." As demonstrated in the 1990's by successfully resolving problems in the DROC, Liberia, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea, Iran and Central Asia, perhaps?
Lastly, "In the short run, a Democratic administration would actively push for a comprehensive peace through hands-on diplomacy. We already have a model for this -- the last years of the Clinton administration" Which accomplished what? Withdrawal from Gaza, or the West Bank, or any intermediate steps to a comprehensive final agreement?
I love your energy, commitment and idealism, but your arguments seem to come up short to me.

[Dan Kervick]

Shadi,

I have so many reservations about the foreign policy vision you put forward, and objections to it, that I hardly know where to begin. That’s usually my response to the output of the Truman Democrats. But let me try to start with some observations and hypotheses about terrorism:

Terrorism, it seems to me, is a technique that will always be attractive to non-state actors with limited conventional power. As explosive materials and devices have become more readily available in the past few centuries, as modest technical proficiency in physical chemistry and biochemistry has spread outside a small well-governed elite and into the broader culture, and as cheap and easily obtained guns, ammunition and bargain basement military equipment have been proliferated to absurd and obscene levels, the frequency and destructiveness of terrorism have increased apace.

The problem is not some sudden and unusual eruption of “extremism”. There always have been, and probably always will be, radical militant groups characterized by some combination of dour alienation, legitimate grievances, resentment, fantasy, hatred and wild-eyed utopian fervor. They will be attracted by the opportunity for a few weak people to do great damage and accomplish great things. Because the existence and prevalence of terrorism are probably more a function of the underlying technological and security situation, rather than the vicissitudes of the ideology-of-the-month, preventing terrorist attacks should now be regarded as just one of the standard security functions of government. Americans and others should shift from thinking of fighting terrorism on the model of warfare, or an emergency response to a crisis, and begin to think of it as part of good government-as-usual.

Yet terrorism globally is committed by a relatively tiny group of deeply radicalized individuals. Today it’s the mainly, though not exclusively, the most violent of Islamists. But in an earlier age, it was anarchists and nihilists. In the future it may be radical anti-genetic engineering Luddites, or fundamentalist right-to-lifers, or neo-Maoist revolutionaries, or neo-Confederate southern nationalists, or white supremacists, or black supremacists, or Asian supremacists, or Hindu nationalists, or African liberation movements, or South American radical leftists, or South American radical rightists, or ultra-patriotic militiamen. Any group whose cause is weak or dying, and whose convictions and loyalties are passionately and religiously held, will be driven to lash out in resentment and desperation against innocents, because it is the only thing left to try.

But after all, how big a problem is this? The constant media and government drumbeat about terrorism would lead one to think that terrorist bombs and poisons are raining down out of the sky on a weekly basis. Where are they? The last significant terrorist assault in the US was on 9/11/01. All the evidence since then is that the US is doing a rather effective job in interdicting terrorism by non-spectacular means – intelligence gathering, police work, and occasional covert military work done by special forces or other government agencies.

You say:

Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. When people are unable to express their grievances through a legitimate, responsive political process, they are more likely to resort to political violence and terrorism. Islamic extremism feeds upon humiliation, or what Tom Friedman has called “the poverty of dignity.” Arabs can reclaim their dignity only through a democratic process that treats them as citizens with rights, rather than subjects whose sole obligation is to obey. Only with the promise of a democratic future can the Middle East break free of the economic, cultural, and political malaise that has, for decades, fueled the rise of religious extremism.

I hate to cast skeptical aspersions on the profound insights of the mighty Friedman, but perhaps you could cite some empirical research that supports the contention that a major cause of terrorism is the absence of the sort of political dignity enjoyed by citizens of a democratic republic?

Of course, there are many kinds of indignity – for example the indignity of seeing your country run by foreign governments, financiers and businessmen; or the indignity impotence in the face of military conquest and occupation; or the indignity of seeing your religion and way of life disappear and be replaced by what appears to you a crass frenzy of concupiscence, purposeless noise, licentiousness and rootless individualism. And there is the indignity of unemployment, or of social and economic inferiority. There is the indignity of being looked down upon by Westerners affecting moral and cultural superiority. I have read studies that suggest these kinds of indignity might play a major role in motivating contemporary Islamist terrorism. But where are the studies showing that the indignity of not living in a democratic country plays a significant role? And where are the studies showing that the emergence of democratic institutions in Middle Eastern countries would draw a significant amount of energy out of contemporary terrorism, and channel it elsewhere? Maybe there is a case to be made, but so far it appears highly speculative.

After all, many of those who practice terrorism do not seem notably drawn to democratic political philosophies; so what makes you think they will cease to practice terrorism when their societies adopt democratic systems of government?

I would also note that several of the major recent threats and attacks have been in Europe, in countries that already have democratic governments, and plenty of opportunity for political participation. What the Muslims in Europe appear to lack is some combination of social acceptance by their countrymen, economic opportunity and equality, and cultural security. Yet they can vote, and are citizens of democratic countries. So unless this crusade you envision includes ending injustice, inequality, bigotry, religious rivalry, caste and class discrimination - and in short all the social ills that bedevil human society - there is no reason to think it is going to alleviate the problem to a significant degree.

We have to avoid being caught up in excessive focus on “root causes”. The root causes of the things that threaten us are complex and sometimes close to intractable. Solving these problems is the work of centuries, or millennia, not a couple of political campaigns. By all means, let us always strive to gradually make the world a more just and fair place, even as we work to prevent our struggles over injustice from killing millions or billions of us along the way. But let’s not delude ourselves with the promise that if we embark on some radical regional transformation program, we are going to cut the Gordian knot and solve the big problems. This is the sort of unrealistic revolutionary enthusiasm that took hold in the 19th century, and ultimately laid the intellectual and dispositional groundwork to the catastrophes of the 20th.

You also tell us:

“Islamic extremism represents an existential challenge to the very moral foundations of our country, for the simple reason that large-scale terrorist attacks on the homeland will make it much more difficult -- if not impossible -- for us to stay free.”

Oh gosh – not another “existential challenge.” Another thing that will prevent us from staying free is hysterical scaredy-cats and ideologues of the right and the left, noisily trumpeting the urgent “crisis” of terrorism, or the vast global threat of Islamo-extremo-fasci-totalitarianism, and thereby creating the insecure political conditions for the further seizure of power by the federal government. I choose not to believe that Americans are such weak and abject cowards, who are ready to throw away 230 years of constitutional freedom because they’re worried about terrorists under the bed. And if we do want Americans to avoid throwing their freedoms away, then let’s take our case to Americans themselves. Let’s not approach the problem by agreeing 100% with the fear-mongers about the dire existential nature of the threat, and then just promising to do a better job at fighting it. That may lead them to give all that power to a Democratic president rather than a Republican one, but they will be surrendering their power, liberty and capacity for self-government either way.

You do try to draw a distinction between your version of the progressive approach to democracy promotion and the neoconservative approach:

“… The progressive approach to democracy promotion is distinguished by a fundamental realization that democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint. The United States can, however, effectively pressure Arab governments to democratize by making economic and military aid conditional on a pre-established set of markers emphasizing freedom of expression, free elections, and the rights of opposition groups. In practice, this would mean telling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan, and others that if they do not get serious about political reform, the United States will get serious about slashing foreign aid. For governments that demonstrate a willingness to change, a comprehensive package of incentives will be offered. A successful democracy promotion policy consists of more than just a statement of intent. It requires a sustained commitment, clear objectives, and detailed policy prescriptions tailored for each country’s particular needs and challenges.”

I’m not opposed to using our good offices judiciously to create some political space for Arab liberals and others whose voices are suppressed, and to help support broad popular movements against despotic overlords, when it is clear the movements really are popular. But I think we really have to avoid throwing our weight behind minority movements that do not represent anything close to the will of the majority of the people we are endeavoring to assist. The people of the Middle East do not have the same political history and cultural memory that are possessed by Western intellectuals. Their diagnosis of the problems that ail them, and the political innovations that would alleviate them, is likely to be profoundly different than our own. They are going to have to find their own way forward. I don’t think another round of Western political tutelage, mandates, requirements and ultimatums is going to do the trick.

You continue:

“Even so, illiberal Islamist parties will still likely come to power in free elections. This is a reality we must come to terms with. Working with these emerging governments, at least initially, will be frustrating. Anticipating these difficulties, we must begin to engage in dialogue with mainstream Islamist parties sooner rather than later. Over the long-term, the responsibilities of government are likely to privilege pragmatism over ideology, practicality over posturing. Democracy does not always moderate ideological actors, but, in the right conditions and with sustained international involvement, it can and will.”

After these non-democratic democrats come to power are we going to whip some sanctions on them if they suppress civil and political liberties – just as you recommend for Mubarak and Abdullah? One suspects Middle Easterners will quickly tire of this game, which comes down to this: “We insist you provide the freedom to become exactly what we say you should become.”

While you have much to say about the importance of the democracy campaign, when it comes to two of the really urgent and vital foreign policy issues facing us now, you really have nothing substantive to offer. First on Iraq:

“Thanks to the Bush administration, Iraq has become the war on terrorism’s front line. We cannot simply wash our hands of the responsibility that is now ours. Rather than “staying the course,” however, we must change course, and decisively so. A Democratic president in 2008 must make a new case to the world, that we made a mistake in invading Iraq the way we did, that we betrayed our ideals in the dungeons of Abu Ghraib, but that the cause of Iraqi democracy remains a just one that deserves -- rather, demands -- the international community’s participation.”

I missed the part in all this where you tell us, or even suggest, what to do about Iraq, other than apologize for our past mistakes. I know we’re supposed to “change course”. And that means …? And do you really think the world is going to be much impressed with mealy-mouthed half-apologies about invading Iraq “the way we did” – which carries the tacit implication that we should have invaded them some other way. I’m also trying to understand how the part about “demanding” international cooperation is supposed to go. What do we do … hold our breath? Put the world in a time out? Threaten to invade France and Germany? Sanction them? As we can see, the international community is none to eager to step into the rat’s nest in Southern Lebanon right now. Take Lebanon and multiply it by 5 or 10, and you have Iraq.

The other urgent and vital issue is WMDs, about which you say:

Democratic government means more transparency -- and as Wright correctly points out, “the evolution of biotechnology will make an increasingly fine-grained transparency vital to security.” The transparency that comes with democracy will make it harder for countries to accumulate stockpiles of dangerous weapons without the rest of the world knowing about it.

Oh come on – how far are you going to stretch the stupendous powers of the wonderful democratic cure-all? Do you think holding some elections and allowing more political organizing and free speech are going to do much to put a dent in the massive state secrecy that surrounds nuclear weapons programs – in democracies as well as other states? Dealing with the problem of weapons proliferation, and the threats posed by them, is a matter for statecraft and diplomacy. I don’t think democracy promotion is going to prove a major factor.

Finally, you purport in your essay to give a “new foreign policy vision”. But that vision is fixated to the point of obsession on the Middle East. There are a whole host of really crucial global issues about which you have nothing to say: energy conflict and security, environmental degradation, hunger, disease, population issues, economic displacement, financial stability, great power rivalry – none of these things seems to move you at all or fit into your vision – which is really more like tunnel vision focused on some Middle Eastern pinpoints.

I can see you have an agenda; a personal cause which really fires you up. It’s the cause of democratizing the Middles East. But I fear you are letting your personal attachment to the cause impair your judgment about what is really best for Americans. Some Republicans in recent years have sought to exaggerate threats, exploit the fear they provoke, and distort and oversimplify the causal connections among global events, in order to accomplish certain strategic, ideological, or domestic political goals. Of course some really believe the things they are saying, but others hope by demagoguery to enlist the public in the pursuit of the ambitions that drive them personally.

Some contemporary Democrats, it seems, also seek to exaggerate threats, exploit the fear they provoke, and distort and oversimplify the causal connections among global events in order to accomplish ideological goals. I may have more sympathy with the long-term Democratic goals than the long-term Republican goals. But I resent the overreaching and intellectual dishonesty in both cases.

[Cal]

Terrorism does not occur in a vacuum. When people are unable to express their grievances through a legitimate, responsive political process, they are more likely to resort to political violence and terrorism. Islamic extremism feeds upon humiliation...

While I can agree with most of your democracy promotion agenda -- much of which seems based on the idea that we should stop supporting dictators -- I really have to question your theory on what causes terrorists. Has a study been done on this?

Here's a contrary opinion from the Pentagon's Defense Science Board -- PDF file, page 15:

As part of its global power position, the United States is called upon frequently to respond to international crises and deploy forces around the world. America's position in the world invites attack simply because of its presence. Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.

Of course, this might reinforce your point about the need to wean dictators off our foreign aid, but it does challenge some of your other assertions.

[Draft Sachs]

I know this is not directly related to this discussion, but I thought it was important to point out that there is a new draft movement developing up to get Professor Jeffrey Sachs to run for president. The website for the campaign is
www.SachsForPresident.org

It is time for a new set of priorities in America. Today, our country is in great need of true leadership and vision. We believe that professor Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University is someone who can deliver us a “New Progressive Foreign Policy”. He is a man of great knowledge, experience and integrity. That is why we are working to convince him to run for president of the United States in 2008.

Please check us out, and if you are interested, help.

[Shadi Hamid]

Dan, you asked: "So what makes you think they will cease to practice terrorism when their societies adopt democratic systems of government?" I've tried to address the causal relationship between terror and tyranny in previous posts. It is a complex issue. However, I will say this: if humiliation/"poverty of dignity" does indeed make young Arabs more likely to consider resorting to terror, then we must ask how to lessen this sense of humiliation. Democracy, if it is done right, empowers people and gives them a sense of agency. The current Arab dictators, however, treat their citizens like animals, as something less than human beings. This results in a burgeoning frustration that, in turn, has no political outlet. The channels of political participation are, after all, nearly all closed in Arab dictatorships.

You might counter that this is all just a theory that I'm spinning. So we need empirical evidence. I would suggest you take a look at a very impressive 2003 study conducted by Princeton University Professor Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Maleckova, which analyzed a vast amount of data on terrorist attacks, and came to the alarming conclusion that “the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties. Countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists.” This, of course, is not an argument for monocausality. There are other factors that exacerbate terrorism. However, the level of democracy in a given country is a significant variable, and perhaps the most significant variable relative to others.

[Ben P]

Shahid,

No offense but Dan K just ran circles around you. Your vision is bankrupt and hopelessly contradictory for various reasons.

Its thinking like yours and the so-called "serious" Democratic national security establishment that has put us in the mess we are in right now.

I'm being flippant, but the Dan K is just operating on a level way above yours and most of what passes for serious thinking inside the beltway.

[Ben P]

Additionally,

I do assume you know that real democratization inherently - certainly in the short term - means giving up any American claims to regional hegemony.

The "humilitation" you talk about is real, but it is primarily because they think people like Mubarak and King Hussein are too cowardly in standing up to Israeli and American goals in the region. There's a reason why Nasrallah is a big hero right now on the Arab street. I really wish some of you lot would think more seriouslyt and honestly about the fundamental contradiction inherent in current US policy in the region.

[angels online gold]

I am so happy to earn some angels gold. In fact at first sight I have fallen in love with angels online gold. So no matter how much I have spent to buy angels gold, I never regret. My life changes because of cheap angels online gold.