Douglas Feith, the soon to depart Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday. It was titled Freedom, Safety, and Sovereignty. A few of the remarks he made are worthy of consideration.
The United States strengthens its national security when it promotes a well-ordered world of sovereign states: a world in which states respect one another’s rights to choose how they want to live; a world in which states do not commit aggression and have governments that can and do control their own territory; a world in which states have governments that are responsible and obey, as it were, the rules of the road.
Now, if the essence of sovereignty is that no state dictates how another organizes itself, how can respect for sovereignty be squared with President Bush’s promotion of democracy? I believe President Bush has answered this question by explaining that promoting democracy is not the same thing as asserting a right to impose governments on other states that are simply minding their own business. It would be a contradiction in terms to push democracy down the throats of people. Democracy means self-government and people can have it only if they choose it for themselves.
[snip]
To contemplate that question is to come to understand why the United States cannot possibly win the war on terrorism by military means alone – or by itself alone. The United States can win the war – it can defeat terrorist extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society – only through cooperation with allies and partners around the world.
Now, this may strike you as a shockingly non-unilateralist pronouncement. Perhaps you will conclude that it represents the new diplomatic tone of the new term of this Bush presidency. In fact, recognition that allies and partners are indispensable to the war effort has animated U.S. strategy since 9/11. Top U.S. officials have said so for years, though statements to this effect tended to be ignored or underplayed by folks wedded to the thesis, as common as it is false, that the administration is run by fools committed to go-it-alone-ism in national security affairs.
Huh. So we need to respect how other countries (i.e. states) choose to live, acknowledge that governments can and do control their own territory, and endorse the global "rules of the road". Is that what we've done? Does our invasion of Iraq meet these standards? It seems not, at least to me. It often feels like our government officials have a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to the world. Feith claims that Bush's method of promoting democracy isn't the equivalent of forcing democracy. But that's exactly what we're doing in Iraq. We're pushing it down their throats claiming perhaps that the Iraqis are choosing it for themselves but neglecting the fact that we've given them no other choice.
And what do you know. Feith agrees with John Kerry. Kerry was derided for promoting the idea that this is a global problem, that it requires the cooperation of allies, and that it wasn't a military problem alone. Apparently, the Department of Defense agrees with him. Perhaps they should have a chat with Bush.
Finally, I wonder why so many of us believe that the administration is committed to go-it-alone-ism? Maybe it's got something to do with the following:
- Unilateral withdrawal fromthe Kyoto treaty on climate change
- Unilateral decision to scrap the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia
- Unilateral rejection of the International Criminal Court
- Unilateral abandonment of free trade principles in the decision to impose tarrifs on steel imports
- Unilateral rejection of the UN Charter's proscription against one nation attacking another for any reason except self defense
- Unilateral decision to invade Iraq
- Unilateral decision that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in Iraq or to categories of Iraqi combatants
- The claim that the president has unilateral power to detain anyone for any length of time, without judicial review
- Endless comments like "you're either with us or against us"
Meanwhile, in a press breifing given on the same day, DOD spokesman Larry DiRita clarified our goals for Iraq:
The U.S. doesn't have a vision for Iraq other than it be peaceful, that it be at peace with its neighbors, it not have WMD, it be whole, it treat its minorities with respect.
So I guess a theocratic government fully allied with Iran, perhaps even run by Iran, would be fine? I think not.
We have to requre our government to match its words with its actions and to call them on it when they don't. This would be just such a time.
Comments