At the end of a fantastic column about Egypt, Ross Douthat says something I was trying to say recently, and says it better:
The long-term consequences of a more populist and nationalistic Egypt might be better for the United States than the stasis of the Mubarak era, and the terrorism that it helped inspire. But then again they might be worse. There are devils behind every door.
Americans don’t like to admit this. We take refuge in foreign policy systems: liberal internationalism or realpolitik, neoconservatism or noninterventionism. We have theories, and expect the facts to fall into line behind them. Support democracy, and stability will take care of itself. Don’t meddle, and nobody will meddle with you. International institutions will keep the peace. No, balance-of-power politics will do it.
But history makes fools of us all. We make deals with dictators, and reap the whirlwind of terrorism. We promote democracy, and watch Islamists gain power from Iraq to Palestine. We leap into humanitarian interventions, and get bloodied in Somalia. We stay out, and watch genocide engulf Rwanda. We intervene in Afghanistan and then depart, and watch the Taliban take over. We intervene in Afghanistan and stay, and end up trapped there, with no end in sight.
Sooner or later, the theories always fail. The world is too complicated for them, and too tragic. History has its upward arcs, but most crises require weighing unknowns against unknowns, and choosing between competing evils.
Seems reasonable to me. I’ve been thinking a few of those things. And the thesis seems sound that nobody knows what the hell is going to happen.
I find myself strangely hopeful with what is going on in Egypt. The future might well prove that feeling to be foolish. I know many felt hopeful going into Iraq and now feel foolish for it. That said the point Brendan’s friend Doug has made countless times on twitter is quite sound, what would you have us do in Egypt? Intervention in this case is a no win for us no matter how we intervene, so all we can do is wait and see.
I couldn’t agree more. As a political scientist, one of my greatest pet peeves, with both the media and political actors, is the perpetuation of the “Cookie Cutter Foreign Policy” myth. As this quote demonstrates, theories fall to the graces of reality. Each situation must be categorized and discussed independent of any other variable. Modern politics urge a divide between the ideas of “us” and “them.” We are either Right or Left. In diplomatic situations, a greater degree of nuance is required. Sadly, both parties continue to make decisions inside the box of their own ideology.
On the surface, Douthat’s commentary is sobering and instructive. But upon deeper reflection, this piece is an abdication of mores constructed as generic conclusions masquerading as sober analysis.
While there are perfectly legitimate points to debate when evaluating “realpolitik” vs. “liberal internationalism”, the empirical results of each theory — while important to study — take a back seat to their guiding principles.
At its basis, realpolitik is based around the concepts of utilitarianism or pragmatism, and it applies legitimacy to nation-states acting out of their own self-interests. Liberal internationalism, OTOH, makes strong claims to the universality of precepts like liberty, self-determination / representative government, and human rights. One can establish the latter as the strategic goal of their foreign policy yet resort to realpolitik in certain cases out of pragmatic self-interest. However, rooting a foreign policy in nothing but national self-interest belies everything we consider foundational to our system of government.
Put simply, the goals of our foreign policy should not be based on making other countries’ leaders or peoples like us, nor on advancing our interests at the expense of theirs. Our goals should be to ensure peace and security for the American people, and freedom and liberty for all those who desire them. Sometimes we have to split the difference and support dictators, but in such cases, it should always be clear that we are settling temporarily, and that liberty and freedom for those in subjugation to the dictator remains our goal. When the people under the oppressor’s thumb finally cry out, “Enough!”, far be it for us to stand in their way!
As for empirical results, Douthat hides his intellectual surrender behind generic allusions to historical events. Supporting democracy is not the same as supporting freedom and liberty; where the former can be hijacked to prevent the latter, we must be vigilant. And we hardly dipped our toes in Somalia — we turned our tails and fled like Brave Sir Robin rather than get down and dirty to tackle the lawlessness endemic in that land. Rwanda was Exhibit A in the fruits of a foreign policy based solely on realpolitik, and our first intervention in Afghanistan consisted of little but for the equipping of anti-Soviet insurgents. Our real abdication came latter, after the USSR had withdrawn, and we stood idly by as the Taliban came to power because, again, there was nothing there in our national interest.
The bottom line is, the theory of liberty for every human soul has not failed. What has failed is our resolve to stick to our principles.
I know many felt hopeful going into Iraq and now feel foolish for it.
Most of those people either had unrealistic expectations to begin with, or else they are uninformed about what has transpired in Iraq as compared to the status quo ante. As things currently stand, if anyone should feel foolish* about Iraq, it is the pessimists who thought that self-gov’t couldn’t be sustained there.
* Not counting those who believed WMDs in Iraq were a “slam-dunk”, but that is a separate matter.
Any comments upon the hypothesis as to how much of what is happening in Egypt and Tunisia is due to the word in the souk getting around that Iraqis no longer have to put up with despotic autocrats as their main government ? (Yes, we know, Iraq ain’t perfect)
As Joe Mama #4 observes, a depressingly large number of folk in the West are unaware just how much Iraq has been transformed for the better, in many practical day-to-day ways … the same folk helped to fund IRA terrorism without being at all aware that they, themselves would have fought to avoid becoming under the control of the Irish Republic’s laws – abortion strictly illegal, contraception possession (never mind use) a criminal offence, et cetera …
To AML’s point, I think we do more to support freedom and democracy in Egypt by staying the fuck out of it than we would be interfering. Unless someone asks us to be there we need to sit on our damn hands.
Look at it this way, say the French just showed up at the Boston Massacre and were like hey, we are on your side and started shooting the Brits. I don’t really think that would have gone over too well. On the other hand the French were instrumental in the Revolution, but at our request.
dcl, I don’t see where I inferred any particular approach vis-a-vis Egypt. You may very well be right that sitting on our hands and/or pushing behind the scenes for an orderly transition is our safest route for now. However I would argue that we should have pressured Mubarak more forcefully over the past few years to hold legitimate elections. Had we done so, e.g. if we had withdrawn foreign aid, it’s likely the U.S. would not be so tied to Mubarak in the minds of the Egyptian protesters. As it is, Mubarak = U.S. puppet as far as most of Egypt is concerned.
AML fair enough on all points @7.