Spreading Democracy
Now here's some exciting news:
"The Bush administration has launched an ambitious bid to promote democracy in the 'greater Middle East' that will adapt a model used to press for freedoms in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe."
Yes, it's back to the Helsinki Accord, signed by Gerald Ford in 1975. Lots of statesmanship and diplomacy involved: the U.S. will work with NATO and the European Community, and then "hopes to win commitments of action from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries."
Really, a lot of diplomacy: "Unlike Helsinki, however, the administration's 'Greater Middle East Initiative' seeks to avoid creating committees and structures to strictly monitor progress and issue report cards, U.S. officials say. It also seeks to avoid appearing to dictate to the Islamic world."
Now: was this Bush's plan all along--it sounds like a very good one--or is it the back up to which he has been forced by problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq?
Link via Matthew Yglesias, who has some fun at the expense of David Brooks. Did Carter refuse to insist on effective morality in foreign policy, so that it was necessary for Reagan to come along like a white knight and fix everything? Or did a series of presidents, of both parties, do a good job of carrying out the Truman Doctrine, with the Helsinki Accord tightening the noose on the commies in a precise way?
According to this simplified history: "Although [Ford] claimed credit for the Helsinki Accord in which the Soviet Union renounced its right to keep its satellite states in line by military intervention, the true effect was to recognize at last Soviet domination of the eastern bloc nations. Possibly, however, the Helsinki Accord helped restrain the Soviet Union from intervening when citizens in communist countries overthrew their governments in 1989."
A much more positive view here:
"This engaging book argues that human rights norms mattered more than geopolitical power or economics in ending the Cold War. Conventional views stress the Soviets' inability to keep up with American military might and reverse economic decline. In contrast, Thomas contends that communism's weakness resulted from the opposition activity triggered by the Soviet signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. Although the European Community was a prime mover in putting human rights on the East-West agenda (through the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe), the Soviet ratification of the Helsinki accord was instrumental. Contrary to American neoconservatives who charged that the Helsinki accord was an empty bargain, Thomas argues the Soviets were in fact trapped by it -- because they desperately needed it to bolster their international legitimacy. Relations with the West were subtly transformed and a platform was created for social groups to mobilize in both the East and the West and commit their nations to implementing the Helsinki principles. The author's historical analysis nicely illuminates the catalytic role of these norms in undermining communist rule."
Carter is given credit for putting teeth in the human rights provisions here.
UPDATE: It might just be that the U.S. is no longer able to attempt military intervention anywhere, so diplomacy is the only alternative.
Timothy Noah says U.S. forces and dollars (along with credibility) are stretched to the limit: "Here, then, is the silver lining for Democrats who fear that John Kerry will lose to George W. Bush: Kerry may be less inclined to take the nation into war, but Bush will be even less able to."
This in turn may provide some background to the fact that France, not the U.S., may be about to intervene in a worsening situation in Haiti. Josh Marshall and Tacitus both point out the potential Monroe Doctrine issue here.
Could it be that the U.S., mostly because of the commitment in Iraq, is now unable to intervene militarily anywhere at all, even close to home?
|
