The Morality of International Democritization
International Democritization is not a new concept. The idea that a nation would try to apply its own "successful" governing principles to other parts of the world, promoting its own system above all others, is an activity every empire has found the need to implement. That the United States, another, newer empire, is doing the same, and plausibly seeking to do it elsewhere, is no surprise. The question, though, is whether international democritization, in the case of the United States (it was international autocratization for Alexander the Great and Caesar), is a good thing and, separately, something the nation should be actively seeking.
At the outset of any discussion surrounding this question is the obvious observation that it is contradictory and ironic for a democratic nation to force "freedom" onto foreign subjects. This notion has to at least be considered, because it underwrites the entire operation. International democritization aims to spread freedom and democracy to the world, yet it often manifests itself as a large and powerful country forcing a small and weak country into a political system with which it is probably unfamiliar. There is a swath of rhetoric directed towards letting the people of the country in question determine their fate, their government, but their options are limitated to which kind of democracy they are allowed to have. If the people in Iraq, for instance, voted overwhelmingly to be represented by a monorchial authoritarian government, I have a sneaking suspicious the United States, and the international community at large, would veto any such measure.
Once we manuever past this uncomfortable realization, we are confronted with the question of whether a country should do it in the first place. From a security perspective, it might be rational to consider toppling unpleasant regimes, so as to further guarantee the safety of a country's citizens, but then is it rational to impose the same style of government onto that subject country as the host's own? Maybe it is the thought of a victorious country that since it is, in fact, victorious, its political system is right and better, so to use another would be wrong. Whatever the reasoning, it needs to be reexamined and, at the least, reconsidered broadly.
But is it a good thing at all to trample in someone else's business? From a moral standpoint, it would seem we are all culpable in making the decision to stop abuse, death, and murder by any tyrant, anywhere in the world. The Rwandan genocide, for example, appears as a black stain on the international community, and the lack of involvment combined with the veritable flood of verifiable evidence supporting the genocide's existence would seem to argue that the United Nations is an awful piece of shit and its respective members are all total and complete assholes. But on the other hand, where does one draw the line? Is it then the responsibility of the international community to topple every abusive regime the world over? Here arises the issue of absolute morality and whether a community can even agree on what morality is in order to defend it. If a group of nations cannot decide what counts as abuse, then how can they mount a unified front against it? And so we are left with the sinking feeling of impotence, of inaction and inability, of confusion.
What are the problems, then, of international democritization? Well, for starters, the nation builder must understand the history of the region. The United States, to the contrary, has failed, repeatedly, to do their homework when they have set out to spread freedom to the world. They have been constantly and unerringly ignorant of the focus country's demographics, culture, and political tendencies, which causes all manner of havoc when the conflict ends and nation building commences. Was there a plan to rebuild Iraq after toppling Saddam? "No," admitted Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Was there a plan to rebuild Vietnam? No, but we never got a chance to botch that one. And the same goes for Korea, as well, or Guatemala, or Panama, or Guam, or the Philippines, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, and so on. The United States has seen fit to topple and remove dozens of regimes over the past 150 years, but has seemed ill-prepared each time to successfully install a new, functioning government. It seems to me they eventually recognized this weakness, because they began letting indiginous warlords and generals institute dictatorial governments in the aftermath as long as they swore semi-allegiance to the United States, or at least agreed not to give in to Soviet advances.
What stresses the mind when considering democritization are the complexities of the activity. A country must be aware of indiginous populations, cultures, languages, and tendencies; they must understand that it is a long and arduous process that requires a substantial amount of time and money, and possibly military occupation; they must submit to the realization that their government might not be the best government; and they must recognize that the activity, as a whole, is going to become uncomfortable and negatively viewed by the host country's electorate. The decisions required are going to be mesmerizingly difficult, and producing a system of answers that is free of contradictions and problems will be all but impossible.
So what is a country to do? I do not know, and I do not think we will ever produce a sufficiently qualified answer. The complex nature of the issue and task is so overwhelming at times that considering all the variables consistently is super-diffcult, if not impossible, which lends credence to the reservation that an answer is not possible. It is particularly saddening, disheartening, that the issue is so complex as to be inpenetrable: how is a country to operate, then? Is it to base its international policy on the whims of whichever leader is currently holding court? Is it to ascribe to some doctrine of action beforehand and merely institute fitting aims in the future? Or is it to struggle, obviously, with the pain of incomprehensibility, the anguish of its inability to divine the correct course?
Probably the first and second, but hopefully the third.
At the outset of any discussion surrounding this question is the obvious observation that it is contradictory and ironic for a democratic nation to force "freedom" onto foreign subjects. This notion has to at least be considered, because it underwrites the entire operation. International democritization aims to spread freedom and democracy to the world, yet it often manifests itself as a large and powerful country forcing a small and weak country into a political system with which it is probably unfamiliar. There is a swath of rhetoric directed towards letting the people of the country in question determine their fate, their government, but their options are limitated to which kind of democracy they are allowed to have. If the people in Iraq, for instance, voted overwhelmingly to be represented by a monorchial authoritarian government, I have a sneaking suspicious the United States, and the international community at large, would veto any such measure.
Once we manuever past this uncomfortable realization, we are confronted with the question of whether a country should do it in the first place. From a security perspective, it might be rational to consider toppling unpleasant regimes, so as to further guarantee the safety of a country's citizens, but then is it rational to impose the same style of government onto that subject country as the host's own? Maybe it is the thought of a victorious country that since it is, in fact, victorious, its political system is right and better, so to use another would be wrong. Whatever the reasoning, it needs to be reexamined and, at the least, reconsidered broadly.
But is it a good thing at all to trample in someone else's business? From a moral standpoint, it would seem we are all culpable in making the decision to stop abuse, death, and murder by any tyrant, anywhere in the world. The Rwandan genocide, for example, appears as a black stain on the international community, and the lack of involvment combined with the veritable flood of verifiable evidence supporting the genocide's existence would seem to argue that the United Nations is an awful piece of shit and its respective members are all total and complete assholes. But on the other hand, where does one draw the line? Is it then the responsibility of the international community to topple every abusive regime the world over? Here arises the issue of absolute morality and whether a community can even agree on what morality is in order to defend it. If a group of nations cannot decide what counts as abuse, then how can they mount a unified front against it? And so we are left with the sinking feeling of impotence, of inaction and inability, of confusion.
What are the problems, then, of international democritization? Well, for starters, the nation builder must understand the history of the region. The United States, to the contrary, has failed, repeatedly, to do their homework when they have set out to spread freedom to the world. They have been constantly and unerringly ignorant of the focus country's demographics, culture, and political tendencies, which causes all manner of havoc when the conflict ends and nation building commences. Was there a plan to rebuild Iraq after toppling Saddam? "No," admitted Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Was there a plan to rebuild Vietnam? No, but we never got a chance to botch that one. And the same goes for Korea, as well, or Guatemala, or Panama, or Guam, or the Philippines, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua, and so on. The United States has seen fit to topple and remove dozens of regimes over the past 150 years, but has seemed ill-prepared each time to successfully install a new, functioning government. It seems to me they eventually recognized this weakness, because they began letting indiginous warlords and generals institute dictatorial governments in the aftermath as long as they swore semi-allegiance to the United States, or at least agreed not to give in to Soviet advances.
What stresses the mind when considering democritization are the complexities of the activity. A country must be aware of indiginous populations, cultures, languages, and tendencies; they must understand that it is a long and arduous process that requires a substantial amount of time and money, and possibly military occupation; they must submit to the realization that their government might not be the best government; and they must recognize that the activity, as a whole, is going to become uncomfortable and negatively viewed by the host country's electorate. The decisions required are going to be mesmerizingly difficult, and producing a system of answers that is free of contradictions and problems will be all but impossible.
So what is a country to do? I do not know, and I do not think we will ever produce a sufficiently qualified answer. The complex nature of the issue and task is so overwhelming at times that considering all the variables consistently is super-diffcult, if not impossible, which lends credence to the reservation that an answer is not possible. It is particularly saddening, disheartening, that the issue is so complex as to be inpenetrable: how is a country to operate, then? Is it to base its international policy on the whims of whichever leader is currently holding court? Is it to ascribe to some doctrine of action beforehand and merely institute fitting aims in the future? Or is it to struggle, obviously, with the pain of incomprehensibility, the anguish of its inability to divine the correct course?
Probably the first and second, but hopefully the third.
0 erotic poetry prompts:
Post a Comment