It is difficult to think of a case, in the past century or more, in
which two democratic nations were at war with each other. Nations
with democracy tend to have a wide array of manners in which to deal
with conflicts, which do not involve war. It seems clear that
democracy is good for humanity. Indeed because of democracy, in many
ways, the future of humanity is brighter now than it has ever been.
We, in the western democratic nations, do have a vested interest in
seeing democracy spread over the globe. And, it's in the best interest,
realistically, of those in nations that are not yet democratic. With
the recent “Arab Spring” populist uprisings in Egypt, Syria,
Libya among other nations, we are seeing a movement toward democracy
and modernity and humanity in the Middle East. And, US President
Obama has shown that we need and we can shift our foreign policy, our
involvement in the spread of democracy, away from the old less
effective and more costly ways.
A case to point to is Libya. America, leading the effort of several
NATO member nations, did not set one soldier's foot on the Libyan
soil. Unlike with the previous president's approach with military
forces toppling the existing government and installing a new one. We
used our military to only support the people in their own efforts to
change the direction of their own nation. It cost us little,
including no loss of American lives, and they accomplished for
themselves the change they needed. We supported the people of Libya
by only ensuring that the battleground was kept equal. We did not do
anything to win it for them. We only made sure that the fight was not
lopsided and unfair.
Now, certainly, we can't, with this approach, control everything. We
can't simply install a government as we prefer. But, quite frankly we
should get over our power-trip and our controlling demeanor. The
biggest problem in this new way, regarding the establishment of new
governments in the middle east, is that there are many who still hold
on to the archaic idea that religion is important. A real democracy
will require freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Though,
Islamists don't want the people to have that. It's vitally important
for a stable society, and for humanity, that their government stay
out of religion. That the government, in no way, supports any
religion (obviously there Islam) or religiousness. Of-course, the
majority of people will still be Muslim, like in America where the
majority are Christian. But the people must earn their identity as a
free people. We must only support them, not dictate to them what we
want for them. It will take time, but once the people have a taste of
liberty, they will hold it more precious.
At the end of the day, the only way it will work is if the people
there do it themselves. We, in America, can only choose to support
and trade with a government, but we should not be installing them. It
is morally wrong for our nation to dictate, let alone removing
governments and installing new ones. We can, however, adjust our
foreign policy to have some serious influence. We can decide that we
will not trade or have diplomatic relations with nations that do not
meet our standards on certain issues. Standards like actual freedom
of religion and freedom of speech and open, uncorrupted, democratic
elections with adhered-to term limits. We ought to require civil
rights equality for all without discrimination, including gender
equality and equality for ethnic regional minority groups. We should
demand that they recognize, and completely abide by, the UN's
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must let the people of the
globe know what our standards are, what our requirements are if they
want to trade with us and have friendly relations. We can have a
strong shaping influence on the rise of democracy around the globe by
establishing our own standards and criteria for trade and relations.
And, once we clearly define this policy, we must stick to it.
Copyright © 2012 Joshua
Michail
No comments:
Post a Comment