By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Pre-emptive wars against potential enemies, democratization of undemocratic and unfriendly governments, and the spread of freedom throughout the world, have been foreign policy goals of our government. One may argue whether this policy depicts our benevolence or our arrogance. Others may wish an aggressive policy to feed the poor, cure the sick and protect the week. The policy of invading a country to democratize its politics and to free its people must be challenged to preserve our own democracy and freedom.
Why would a superpower wage a preemptive war against a country with limited means of defending itself? The claim of stopping a war before it starts is unsubstantiated. In reality the war would be a war of aggression, occupation, domination and colonization.
For democratization of tyrant governments and for spreading freedom, we must have a more realistic approach. It does not take a rocket scientist to know wars do not democratize rotten systems, but antagonize the people living in that system. Freedom will not canvas the lands and hatred may spread, instead. Facing reality, one can see the current practice of our government needs modification.
But who am I to question the conduct of our government? I am just an immigrant who came to this country in search of peace, happiness and freedom. I must say that I am satisfied with what I have achieved, and I have enjoyed being an American. And as so, I feel empowered to voice my opinion.
Do we really need a preemptive wars policy? I say no. During the Cold War we did not have such a policy against the Soviet Union, which was the only union of countries that had the capacity to inflict horrendous destruction and pain on us. But, we were prepared and ready to strike back with immeasurable destruction and bane. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the threat of what remained of it has been considerably diminished.
We are wooing China and India in becoming our trade partners. They will not be our enemies in the foreseeable future. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are our allies. The Europeans are our allies too. There is no fear of attacks against us from these countries.
We are left with many underdeveloped and poor countries that are ruled, in most cases, by undemocratic governments. Would these countries attack us for any reason? Do they have the capability to hurt us? The answer is no.
A more reasonable assumption to is that the self appointed rulers would seek to keep their people fed and quiet, to stay in power. They would not achieve that by attacking a superpower. Many believe attacking or invading any country in a so called pre-emptive war would hurt our pride and tarnish our image as a country of laws, not a country of rulers. Again, preemptive wars, if used by other countries, will spark chaos. The world will return to its pre United Nations era, during which the rule of the jungle prevailed.
We learned in school (Maslow’s Theory of needs and motivations) that people have needs to satisfy before they aspire to power that might be begotten from democracy. They want to stay alive. They need food, air, and water. They need to be safe from physical and psychological harm. They need affection and belonging. Then they may need democracy so they may feel important and strong.
It is hard to convince people that democracy is good for them if they were hungry, if they feel insecure, or if they feel unloved. Democracy will not have any chance to hold If people do not have a shelter to protect them from the elements of the weather, and if they do not have basic protection against predators.
They need jobs. They need to learn how to farm their land efficiently. They need factories to add value to their natural resources. They need health care to protect them against simple and pandemic diseases. They need love. If we give them love, they get their basic needs with it.
Democracies are fortresses that protect the dignity of man. Their foundations must go deep to the bedrock of the land. We must love them and make them grow to want democracy. Patience is required. Building democratic communities is not like building a car on an assembly line.
Also, which democracy do we wish to export to other countries? Is it the democracy that was the foundation of our country, or a democracy that might keep these democracies open to outside meddling? Is it the democracy that produces a government of the people, for the people, by the people, which sounds nice, or some other form of government that may be more efficient?
Alex de Tocqueville, a 19th century French historian, enlightened us about our own democracy and warned us against its vulnerability in the face of corruption. Democracy is not uniform but is a range with shades and colors. There is a French democracy, and English democracy. There are underdeveloped countries that seem to have different forms of democracy. Do we shun them because their democracies are different from ours, or do we try to understand their governments, and encourage them to keep developing their democracies until they mature?
What is wrong with tribal democracy? I wish scholars study tribal democracies and inform us of their strengths and weaknesses. A locally developed democracy based on local tradition and culture may be more effective than a totally imported democracy.
Democracy where individuals have a say in the making of their governments and in the functioning of its institutions is a blessing to the people who embrace it. But for our democracy to flourish in foreign soil it needs solid foundations. That foundation is love. The best way to democratize a country is to love its people, instead of dividing and colonizing them. It is better to love them and help them obtain their basic needs for survival. If we do that for them, some will love us, and they may trust us. Then, with time, democracy will follow.
Please take a minute and tell me what think.
No comments:
Post a Comment