…the idea that democratic participation would actually give aggrieved citizens some relief seems to imply that a democratic government would actually have to address and ameliorate those grievances. In such a context, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that the advance of democracy in the Middle East could mean empowering governments that take a decidedly colder attitude toward America (and Israel).
Click "Read More" to Continue----------->
That’s the problem that many on the American right grappled with while watching Turkey last week. There was lots of ominous talk about how Turkey, instead of being a “bridge” between cultures is now drifting away from the West. Besides the fact that a bridge needs to be connected on both sides, Turkey’s policy against the Gaza blockade reflects public opinion in that country.
Turkey’s generals no longer control foreign policy, and over the past few years this has made Turkey’s foreign policy much less paranoid, and more focused on reestablishing ties with the Muslim world. That is the result a democratically elected Islamist party enacting the policies that its base wants.
This brings up another logical inconsistency in neo-conservative thinking: international opinion doesn’t matter. But if democracies ultimately follow the opinion of their respective national publics (or at least segments of it), and democracy is on the march, then international opinion should become increasingly important over time.
So, which one is it? Freedom or hegemony?
Comments
surely the idea is that entrenched democracies do not pursue conflictual policies against one another - viz democratic peace theory
ie "if democracies ultimately follow the opinion of their respective national publics" then war will be a thing of the past. so the kantian dream goes, in any case
hence expanding the zone of the liberal peace seems a sound policy to me. the question is whether to do this aggressively or not.
To clarify, I'm not trying to say that democracy isn't better than autocracy, or not more conducive to peace. I'm all for liberal peace.
What i'm trying to say is that democracy is not conducive to, shall we say, a "Neo-Reaganite" American foreign policy of "benevolent hegemony."
Democratization doesn't mean that these countries are suddenly going to become closer more like the West. Developing world democracies like India and Brazil don't really care about int'l human rights violations or nuclear non-proliferation.
And democratization in places with a lot of anti-American feeling, like the Arab world, would provide a strong anti-American backlash, and the end to a lot of American military bases. The issue here is that neoconservatives want two main things, American dominance and democratic expansion, which appear to be mutually incompatible.
As for my personal opinions, while I think a democratic world is a better world, I don't think that it is possible for America to go around the world engineering democracy. Thus, I'd prefer in the meantime for America to focus more narrowly on its own interests.
You're both inorrect. In order to understand democracy there's no bounds to teh amount force that you hvae to use to fight for your liberty. I'd bet the two of you have never even thought what it would be like to roll out of bed in the morning and have a British General sitting in your couch eating all of your cornmale, did you? Freedom isn't for sale.
mervman 4 prez!
