April 25, 2005
From the desk of Jane Galt:I don't know quite what to say to this
Mark Kleiman seems to think that the US shouldn't favour democracy in Lebanon because it's bad for Israel, and that this is a sufficiently damning criticism as to need no explanation. As longtime readers know, I support the existance of Israel. But I don't think that America is supposed to run her foriegn policy for the benefit of Israel, at the expense of American interests like a broadly Democratic middle east.
But Hezbollah is going to win! wail critics, and to them I say, "So what?" Not that I'm in favour of Hezbollah; murderous thugs aren't my style, no matter how good their social services network. (See Hussein, Saddam). But I'd be much happier with a democratically elected government in which Hezbollah is the biggest part (provided of course that they can be democratically unelected if the population so desires) than with a government imposed by Syrian fiat. And I think that most people should be. It could well be against the short term interest of the US as well as Israel, but in the long term, a stable democracy is always better to deal with than the restless client state of an unstable dictatorship. Not to mention the fact that, as in Europe and elsewhere, every additional democracy in the Middle East increases the likelihood of more such forming.
Let's clear something up: any Arab democracy is going to be unfriendly to Israel. I am not going to debate the Israel/Palestinian question here, since no one ever wins those arguments. (And I will ruthlessly delete any comments that attempt to broach the question). But that is a fact on the ground: Arabs are very mad at Israel. The idea that because they are mad at Israel, they should be ruled over by despots who will make deals they hate with Israel and America is really pretty foul. That is what imperialism looks like, to those who have been carelessly throwing the word around lately, and I hope I'm not the only person who supported the Iraq war who would stand foursquare against interventions with such purposes.
Update I'm informed that Jonathan Zasloff, not Mark Kleiman, wrote the post in question.
Posted by Jane Galt at April 25, 2005 2:37 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksI completely agree that democracy (as opposed to a one-time election) is preferable to dictatorship even if it leads to the election of some less-than-friendly governments in the Middle East. At least then both sides would know exactly where they stand, unlike the current situation where supposedly friendly governments make side deals with the worst fascists in the world. It has almost become cliché to express shock at seeing self-described "progressives" argue against democracy, but sometimes I am still taken aback. I wonder if they really believe what they're saying or if it's just a convenient stick to beat the Bush administration with.
Interesting considerations here.
I would add a little different view on the matter: while some people see a sort of binary distinction between friends and enemies (eg. whoever is not willing to walk in the fire for me is my enemy), in reality there is kind of continuum between unconditional friendship at one end and fierce genocidal hatred at the other.
Yes, even democratic Arab states will still be from mildly to intensely hostile to Israel for years to come. But I think it will be an improvement anyway.
They would, of course, have to rewrite the constitution of Lebanon in order for Hezbollah to get a majority. The 1990 Taif agreement affirmed the consocial division of parliamentary seats again. Certainly a future census and shifting demographics could change things. But currently it would take (and cause) another civil war for Hezbollah to take over and attack Israel.
I doubt that a majority of Lebanese would want armed conflict with Israel, and it would devastate the country. Even Hezbollah would bow to reality at some point; I'm skeptical of the argument that Syria is somehow a stronger restraint on Hezbollah than their own self-interest.
In any case, his argument is an argument for never democratizing the area, which I think in the long run causes worse problems. Lebanon has a much longer history of democracy and other advantages. If not there, where? If not now, when?
Is Mark Kleiman some sort of comedian? Didn’t he support John Kerry’s campaign? The hard core left wing of the Democratic Party is hostile towards Israel. Kerry’s own stepson described our ally as America’s 51st state. Anyone voting for a Democratic presidential nominee most certainly isn’t worried about what’s best for Israel.
“Let's clear something up: any Arab democracy is going to be unfriendly to Israel.”
That’s not even close to being accurate. Actually, the exact opposite will occur. The more that the Arab world embraces democracy and meritocracy---the less it will continue to wallow in self pity and victimization. Jew haters suffer from low self esteem and feel the need to scapegoat others. The values of democracy encourage self reliance and an adult outlook on life.
Since the US government is not in fact an arm of the Likud, and since we SHOULD support democracy in the Middle East for simply pragmatic reasons even if for some reason we're not inclined to support it for philosophical ones (I join in the puzzlement of many about why the left has been on the non-democracy side so often lately), and since, good heavens, we have a long history of dealing with governments that are not entirely friendly either to us or to our allies, why should a Hezbollah gov't in Lebanon be such anathema? Our diplomatic stance in that case, I think, ought to be "OK, good work on the democratically elected government. Now... to the extent that that government calls for the destruction of Israel, bad show, and we will vehemently oppose you. So get used to it: there is an Israel and there will continue to be an Israel." Is this materially different from how we deal with the Saudis? (Truly I don't know. But taking Jane's point, no such thing as an Arab government friendly to Israel, yet we have Arab allies.)
Then there's that old saw about the devil trying to take the place of God: if he did, he'd have to take on God's attributes. A Hezbollah government, it seems to me, could not behave the same way that a Hezbollah militia/terrorist organization/etc. can - like Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein's hands are obviously not clean, but they at least tend to adhere to the forms much of the time - an improvement over full-time bomb-throwing, though not perfection.
This generational stuff can get exhausting...
Well, from one point of view, a true Arab Democracy would be bad for Israel in the short run for the simple reason that it would be a better competitor for resources, investment, talent, etc. Despotisms are notoriously ineffeicent.
At the same time, a true Arab Democracy would probably be worse in the short run for other Arab Despots than for Israel. (See also Syria/Iran wrt Iraq and Afghanistan)
In the long run? Depends on how well Israel and and the other Arab countries respond to spirited competetion.
I do not agree that it is a given that democracy in Lebanon, or anywhere for that matter, is a good thing for Israel, the US or the people of the country involved. It is time that we all reconciled ourselves to the fact that only through a restoration of the Crusader States or, in the alternative, the Ottoman Empire, will peace be had in the Middle East.
1. You should probably roll Pakistan somewhere into your analysis. The US (both parties) has been pretty happy with govt. by coup there for reasons of stability.
2. Probably woth noting that the US has in the past actively sought to install friendly govts. as against a democratically elected leader (e.g., Iran and the Shah).
3. Probably worth wondering about what a imperialism looks like. Does invading a country and ending up the only real guarantor of its safety as a state create certain democratic distortions?
4. Probably worth noting that it's entirely reasonable and right for Kleiman to want what he wants, and to want the US to use its powers toward that end. Americans make that argument all of the time. So I'm not sure what there is to be shocked about here.
Another thing to consider: this will be an interesting test of the rule that democracies don't make war on democracies.
In my heart, I dream of a day where the democratic Arab nations treat Israel as we (Americans) treat the French. We bad-mouth them, we stereotype them, we even throw and occaisional boycott at them when they don't go our way, and there is some vicious and visceral disdain going on. But at least, it's not violent.
For what it's worth, Mark didn't write that post, Jonathan Zasloff did.
SCMT : 3. Probably worth wondering about what a imperialism looks like. Does invading a country and ending up the only real guarantor of its safety as a state create certain democratic distortions?
Yes - in a decidedly democratic fashion and definitely not what Imperialism looks like. See West Germany, Japan, South Korea for states where the only real defense was US troops. Now for what imperialism looks like we have many cases. Tibet, by PRC, for one. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Baltic’s states, Ukraine, etc by the USSR for another. Yes we have great comparisons between Imperialistic states and non-imperialistic states don't you think?
Democracy and the US is, almost by definition, non-imperialistic. And democracy is what the US is pushing, slowly but successfully, down the tyrants throats. And I am all for it.
"2. Probably woth noting that the US has in the past actively sought to install friendly govts. as against a democratically elected leader (e.g., Iran and the Shah)."
Various Presidents that I didn't vote for certainly did - and I'm having trouble remembering even one case where it worked out well. Time to try the opposite.
I strongly believe in supporting democracy in the Middle East. I also disagree that Arab democracy will be bad for Israel. In the short term, that may be true, but I don't think it will be true in the long term. Dictatorships (or fear societies as Natan Sharanksy calls them) need enemies in order to stay in power and Israel serves that purpose. In a democracy, Arabs will be able work more towards making their own lives better and won't care as much about hating Israel.
I don't think Hezbollah can, as it is presently constituted, be a functioning part of a democratic society. Like the Nazis in 1933 or the Bolsheviks in 1917, or Arafat's faction, they are not capable of anything other than killing all their rivals once they acquire the power to do so. And I'm not sure at all that Hezbollah's more radical members would allow the party leaders to make the necessary changes.
Lebanon had a very ugly and bloody civil war for 17 years (cca. 1975-1992). It could not govern itself, because of the fractitious composition of it's population. It took the Syrian intervention to put an end to that war and facilitate stability and peace in Lebanon (though - at a price, naturaly). The Lebanese must be grateful to Syria for that.
It is doubtful whether they will manage now to avoid another civil war. Let's hope so.
The trouble with a Hezbollah regime is that once in power they would not stick with democracy - Islamists never do - see Algeria, see Iran. A Hezbollah regime would be unacceptable to the Christians (at least) and would mean another civil war.
Democracy is a good thing, provided it can be sustained, and the country stays democratic. That is not always the case. If democracy is just a stepping stone to an Islamist and undemocratic regime - then an authoritarian regime, that maintains peace and stability (i.e. avoids civil war) is prefferable.
As for Israel - given Hizbolla's military infrastructure and de-facto rule in southern Lebanon - it is difficult to see how a Hizbolla regime in the whole of Lebanon will make thing worse. Things are already now as bad as they could be, in this respect.
The whole premise of this reasoning seems bizarre. The focus on Jew-hatred and radical Islamism in the Arab/Muslim world seems to me a direct outgrowth of the miserable political conditions they live in - take those away, and you end the hatred. Look at Turkey, or Iraq for that matter - whatever neuroses some people living there may have, the societies at large, and their governments, are moderate and America- and Israel-friendly. The concept of a "hard-line democracy" is just an oxymoron.
Arab hatred of Israel is stoked by their dictators' attempts to divert attention from the lack of basic freedoms at home. An Arab democracy may not be all chummy-chummy with Isreal, but the general rule is still true: once a society becomes democractic, it begins to weigh the costs of war against the benefits of peaceful co-existance much more differently. Dictatorship exist for the benefit of the dictator. A democracy actually engages in a rational calculus to weigh benefits and burdens. The relationship between Turkey and Greece is instructive. Both are functional democracies (though not perfect, of course); and Turks and Greeks still have a level of ethnic animosity. But the costs of war to the citizenry of each society don't justify any benefit that they might gain.
One need not speculate on whether the US should or should not support Democracy. The observed behavior from recent government actions point to a clear objective; and it is not relentless support for any democratic endeavor.
Venezuala has democratically elected Hugo Chavez, yet the US has continuously supported the opposition's legal and illegal attempts to overthrow Chavez. The government of the US, so far, supported any institutional arrangement as long as the benefit from it was on the margin greater than the next best alternative.
What one guy says is not to be taken as American policy. America controls Israel and not the other way around...there ils abundant evidence of this.
Hizabullah: if you think it is ok if this is what Lebanon wants, then you would have also felt the Nazi party was ok if that is what Germany wanted.
Hiz. has not been kind to America, not to mention Israel.
Hello--
I'm the one the who wrote the post on Mark's page. All I meant to suggest is that we shouldn't be unduly triumphalist about this. It's hard not to be inspired by the prospect of an Arab democracy. But the Syrian exodus is being seen as an unmitigated good and a triumph for the theory of positive change in the Middle East. I was just trying to throw some cool water on that idea.
I am hopeful, as some have suggested, that yes, Arab democracy will eventually turn out to be good all around. But the more you spend time viewing the Middle East, the more that you realize that things can always get worse.
Jane suggested that the post was suggesting that the United States should only be concerned with Israel's interest. That was not what I meant to convey. Rather, I was suggesting that 1) those who ARE in fact concerned with Israel's interests should be a little wary of this; and 2) to the extent that American interests are coequivalent with a safe and secure Israel (which I believe) might find that they will have a few very rough years ahead.
Comments are Closed.