In the Washington Post (7/7/11), Fareed Zakaria tries to defend Barack Obama against the criticism that he needs a more consistent foreign policy. He writes:
All American presidents have supported and should support the spread of democracy. The real question is: Should that support involve active measures to topple undemocratic regimes, especially military force?
Since this is an important part of his argument, it is worth noting that “all American presidents” have no such passion for the spread of democracy. There is a fairly rich history of U.S. foreign policy taking “active measures” to support undemocratic regimes. It is unclear why Zakaria’s “real question” should be based around the opposite notion.
Interestingly, Zakaria’s rebuttal to the idea that the White House should have “a consistent policy toward the Arab Spring” is at odds with his assurances about U.S. support for democracy. Zakaria points out that the U.S. has not stood very strongly on the side of democratic stirrings in many of the countries under discussion, chalking it up to the usual difference between U.S. “interests” and “values” in places like Saudi Arabia, where the former are far more important than the latter.
There is, of course, a consistency in U.S. policy– it involves standing by dictators who are aligned with U.S. interests, and moving against those who do not, especially when there is oil involved.
Which is another way of saying that it’s a good week to have Noam Chomsky on CounterSpin. Listen here.
Of some of the Arab countries under examination–U.S.-friendly regimes without substantial oil reserves–Chomsky said:
There is a game plan which is employed routinely, so commonly it takes virtual genius not to perceive it…. When there’s a favored dictator, and he’s getting into trouble, support him as long as possible–full support, as long as possible. When it becomes impossible to support him–say, maybe the army turns against him, the business class turns against him– then send him off somewhere, issue ringing declarations about your love of democracy, and then try to restore the old regime.
There’s no real difference between US “values” and “interests”, is there?
It values profit and power above all, and at the expense of all in its path to procuring those interests.
The corpress trots out the trope of “realpolitik” at those times when it can’t pretend there’s any fealty to the ideals of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
That it is able to pretend so the vast majority of the time reveals the depths of the manufactured ignorance of the American public, as well as the magnitude of the struggle to break through that wall of disinformation.
There’s no guarantee it can be done, but there’s absolute certainty our very survival depends on it.
As long as the US pursues eternal infinite growth of consumption, it has little choice but to dominate, intimidate, and extort to garner the raw materials necessary to maintain that cycle, which then requires more empire to exploit and enforce its demands. Note that the US military consumes more oil than most nations do. Just as “It takes money to make money”, it requires a lot of oil to secure a lot of oil. If the US were a peaceful nation it could have spread democratic institutions world-wide in the vacuum of power after WWII, but reacted with fear as the motivator, and chose instead to build Empire, committed to armed aggression as its M.O. ever after.
Gary, that seems a little extreme to me. Germany, Italy and Japan were all given new constitutions after the Second World War, which entrenched democracy very effectively. There are more democratic states in the world now, I believe, than there have ever been before. Britain, too, is in favour of spreading democracy â┚¬“ but always, of course, as long and only so far as it is compatible with certain interestsâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Plus, of course, it depends what brand of democracy we are talking about. Chavez doesn’t count as a democrat, for some reason, and neither did Jean-Bertrand Aristideâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Well to point out the hypocrisy of the presidents in supporting world Democracy may seem like good sport,and may even have some salient points but…..Look at the last 10 years and you will see the democratic ideals continue to spread.Look at the past 20 years.Or 60 years. The wind blows in our favor.We are that engine of democracy.We loose our way constantly.But we always return to the path.
michael e: Democratic ideals continue to spread? Where? Alpha Centari? Another thing. Shouldn’t somebody maybe proofread your comments for you? Just a thought.
RB Read A report card on democracies by the Hoover institute.
Sorry about the eternally sloppy prose.It does annoy normal people and destroy those who are anal.If you mean content…….
michael e wrote: Look at the last 10 years and you will see the democratic ideals continue to spread.Look at the past 20 years.Or 60 years. The wind blows in our favor.
_____________________________________________________________
OK, but that doesn’t really say anything about what appears to be long-standing hypocrisy in foreign policy; the US has a pretty long history of supporting non-democratic regimes, and opposing democratic ones, when it suits our oil-needing, or Communist-hating, or other interests.
The wind may be blowing in our favor, but that doesn’t mean the US is causing the wind to blow or isn’t helpng some dictator somewhere close up the shutters against that same wind– if you’ll excuse a very tortured metaphor.
Huw Spanner,
Gary’s much closer to the truth than you ever will be with your vulgar bourgeois punditry, paralleling that prevaricating tool Zakaria. Nice way of getting to “entrenched democracy” in Germany, Italy and Japan — take fascism, add USA firebombing and/or a couple of atomic bombs, entrench a US military occupation, inveterate anti-communism and behold the glory of being a WWII loser – 100% pure US ruling-class anointed democracy! And wonderful democracy-spreading Britain too, spreading hell from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya!
The fact that 2 elected leaders of the 3 countries you mentioned are at record lows of unpopularity, and Germany’s “multiculturalism-has-failed” Merkel would lose in an election held today, it make makes one wonder what the hell is the point of your “entrenched democracy”…more like “stench democracy”.
I think all of you had better define what is a democracy. Perhaps you can start with an ideal and then look at how societies around the world measure up to that ideal.
I’m as guilty as anyone, but haven’t we gone off point here with all our squabbling? This posting is not about us, folks, it’s about yet another example of biased, distorted and/or ignorant comment in the Washington Post.
John
No doubt we have often lost our way
@michael e
If we lose it so danged often, how can it still be “our” way?
Our constitution,bill of rights,declaration,and other bedrocks of our society has given us a fundamental humanist reality. Coupled with strong judeo -Christian ethics and a freedom of speech, and press, we are in many ways an open society that allows for governance but never rule.The Checks and balances start at the top and flow to the least among us.It has proven(and will prove)to be a good mechanism for righting the ship of state.It is what we call the American ideal.We are still looked to for that moral high ground though I admit to many failings.
Ive noticed our biggest failures occur when government goes underground,conducting our business in the shadows far from the light of day. Today our biggest problem is the economy,and how the government has spent and needs to spend our money. Yet the final resting spot of our wealth (the fed)is above reproach and will not allow itself to be audited.In foreign affairs the shell game is no less devious. Ron Paul has quite a lot to say on the matter.To demagog America as the worst of the lot is lunacy.By any measure it is the best.To work to make it “more perfect” is a part of our noble experiment.
Sorry guys, but America is a republic in theory (Plutocracy in practice), not a democracy. Democracy is what you saw in the Greek city states, where people voted on issues as a body (aka Direct Suffrage), instead of voting for representatives to direct thier power for them. Thus, when popular surges of Direct Suffrage erupt in places like Venezuela to produce leaders like Chavez, it reflects an internal drive toward a changing of their own status quo, thier own power plays between rich and poor, and has nothing to do with proactive American values or influence. After all, such true democracy is not maintainable, as it is inevitably swallowed up and replaced by something more stable. 1905 Russia-Democratic, became totalitarian. 1789 France-Democratic, became totalitarian. 1772 America…in 1860, it became Totalitarian.