W, meet JC

IN THE NEWS
Back in 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush spoke, if anything, like an extreme version of a contemporary Republican politician on the subject of using US power to influence political outcomes in other societies. The term "nation-building," for people in certain political circles, exemplifies everything wrong that Lyndon Johnson did fighting the Vietnam War. According to this critique, having taken the nation's eye off the North Vietnamese Army, Johnson squandered American lives and resources in a feckless attempt to fix a broken society, South Vietnam. Here's what Bush said, during one of the presidential debates:

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

As Bush learned in the White House, it's hard for the United States to stay out of the politics of other societies, particularly when they spawn terrorist threats against the United States. 9/11 wasn't the first time Islamic terrorists struck the US, including attacks on US soil--against the World Trade Center, even. You might say, The difference between now and then was the scale of the 9/11 carnage, which changed everything--but you'd granting al Qaeda quite a privilege, the opportunity to re-shape the entire foreign policy of the world's only superpower, through a combination of cunning, ruthlessness, and dumb luck.

Obviously, Bush believes much differently about what he used to call "nation-building." Not only is he speaking generally about promoting democracy in the Middle East, he's even naming specific countries as targets. Last night, here's what he said about the topic in his State of the Union Address:

And we've declared our own intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures.

We live in interesting times indeed. Perhaps the world has changed, when presto-chango! George W. Bush transforms himself into that most hated of Republican whipping boys, Jimmy Carter.

If you have doubts about what I just said, here's a pertinent quote from Carter's 1979 State of the Union address:

This demand for justice and human rights is a wave of the future. In such a world, the choice is not which super power will dominate the world. None can and none will. The choice instead is between a world of anarchy and destruction, or a world of cooperation and peace.

In such a world, we seek not to stifle inevitable change, but to influence its course in helpful and constructive ways that enhance our values, our national interests, and the cause of peace.

And here's Carter--same audience, same event--one year later:

The decade ahead will be a time of rapid change, as nations everywhere seek to deal with new problems and age-old tensions. But America need have no fear. We can thrive in a world of change if we remain true to our values and actively engaged in promoting world peace. We will continue to work as we have for peace in the Middle East and southern Africa. We will continue to build our ties with developing nations, respecting and helping to strengthen their national independence which they have struggled so hard to achieve. And we will continue to support the growth of democracy and the protection of human rights.

In repressive regimes, popular frustrations often have no outlet except through violence. But when peoples and their governments can approach their problems together through open, democratic methods, the basis for stability and peace is far more solid and far more enduring. That is why our support for human rights in other countries is in our own national interest as well as part of our own national character.

Bush is also facing the same contradictions Carter did in executing a foreign policy that prioritizes the spread of democracy and human rights. Two famous attacks on Carter's foreign policy came from conservative thinker Jeane Kirkpatrick, and academic critic Samuel Huntington. Carter's foreign policy, Kirkpatrick argued in her famous article "Dictatorships and Double Standards," inevitably beat up on American allies (say, South Korea), whom we could influence, and did little to pressure our enemies (like North Korea), who were more immune to American power and leverage. Realistically, even some of the allies were immune to genuine pressure: when Pakistan and India teetered on the brink of war, and US officials suspected either or both had nuclear weapon programs, US officials were suddenly very quiet about human rights violations in Pakistan.

Over 20 years later, an American president is again willing to stay quiet about the Pakistan government's politics as long as Pakistan's president supports key national security initiatives in Central Asia. Then, we were trying to keep Pakistan and India from stumbling towards another war. In the Reagan Administration, of course, Pakistan became our key base in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now, we have been depending on Pakistan to help us chase down al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other nearby countries.

Of course, Bush could have given Mushareff a good tongue-lashing in his State of the Union address, but he saved that honor for Egypt. I hope Bush isn't too surprised when the Egyptian government, suddenly backed into a corner, is a bit less interested in working with us. (Ignore what Mubarak says for the time being, and watch what Egyptian officials are actually doing to help American initiatives in the Middle East.) He shouldn't be surprised, since all of his foreign policy advisors cut their conservative teeth at a time when Kirkpatrick and Huntington were on everyone's lips.

So, W, meet JC. You might not like him, but he can tell you a few things about the foreign policy frustrations you're already facing.

Comments

[J.]

This is a really great post that articulates the difference between the Repubs talking the talk and Dems walking the walk. I keep going back to that one line in the SOTU:

"The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else."

Shouldn't he have added "any more" to the end of that sentence? And how quickly Repubs forget about the 2000 debates with Gore where Bush made clear his disdain for "nation-building" exercises like Somalia and Bosnia. Yes, way over due time for W to meet JC.

[ali]

Yes it’s an interesting comparison. Pakistan has been a lousy ally to both of these Godly, well meaning but essentially hapless Presidents.