Inevitably when you are constrained to 650 words to describe a big idea, the depth of the idea takes a hit. My opinion piece from the Seattle Times earlier this week is no different. Because this blog does not come with a word count, I wanted to expand on three points that didn’t make the final cut.
1. My argument is universal; the Arab Spring is a timely example.
The argument I made was if American foreign policy is going act correctly in post-revolution/post-conflict countries, then they need to focus on “long-term promotion of economic development, education, gender equality, and the rule of law to develop a civil society.” The dominate religion in the post-conflict country is not irrelevant, but it is not dispositive either. Policies like the ones I promoted have been put forth in countries with Christian, Islamic, and indigenous faith populations. It just so happens that at this time I live in a Muslim majority country, and other Muslim majority countries are going through violent shifts similar to those that Kosovo experienced. It is hard not to see parallels; but like all parallels involving history and culture this one is also imperfect. That being said, I would promote what the U.S. did in Kosovo for a nation of any faith, presuming the support for the U.S. in that country was organic in nature.
2. Inaction is not an option.
Simply put, U.S. inaction is not an option after a successful, pro-democratic overthrow of an autocratic government. And here is where I think the Kosovo parallels are most crucial to note. Our lasting success and appreciation in Kosovo comes out of assisting a conflict in progress and then not leaving after the dust settled. Unlike in Iraq or Vietnam, where there was no organic support of U.S. involvement (excluding Kurdish Northern Iraq), Kosovo, Libya, and possibly Syria all show evidence that there is support for the U.S. and the ideals the U.S. stands for. The public rejection of violence against the U.S. after the Benghazi attack is just one example of this support. To not build on this local support is to waste a valuable opportunity to help a people rebuild their country so that they can join the democratic and liberal world after years of being subjects in Muammar Gadhafi’s ostracized Libya. Think of the U.S. and France’s long term support of each other. It started because France took on the British navy during the American Revolution. What I see now is the beginning of a diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Libya in a region where America lacks allies. I may ultimately be wrong on this point; however, to not try at all would be the greatest mistake.
3. It’s our world to lose.
The current liberal world order (e.g. one with strong democracies, human rights, and free trade, etc.) is not here because it was predestined or on account of humanity’s evolution. The U.S. did not win the Cold War because of inevitability. We do not, as it should be apparent, live in a period of time beyond history’s reproach. We live in a heavily democratized world with expansive free trade and significant peace because America and her allies have put their effort into creating it. This world order exists because pro-democratic allies made it exist.
Keeping that in mind, if America does not continue to invest in governments, institutions, and people that promote ideals similar to hers, the current world order is at risk and the all benefits that come with it. Why would that be? Simply, a vacuum would be created in America's absence. If America were to decide to bow out of promoting democracy and free trade, an ideological vacuum would occur and most of our stronger pro-democracy allies are not in a place to do much to fill that vacuum (France and Germany are dealing with Greece; Japan is recovering from natural disasters and a weak economy; England is looking more and more inward). To risk filling that vacuum with ideals from anti-liberal powers (Russia, China) seems ill advised to say the least.
The larger point of the original article was that America needs to persevere and to remain a strong promoter of the ideals cherished at home. To do nothing is to concede an ideological battle that we do not benefit from by losing. This is why investing in long-term promotion of economic development, education, gender equality, and the rule of law to develop a civil society in post-Arab Spring states is imperative. And with Kosovo as my example, I think it is possible.
1. My argument is universal; the Arab Spring is a timely example.
The argument I made was if American foreign policy is going act correctly in post-revolution/post-conflict countries, then they need to focus on “long-term promotion of economic development, education, gender equality, and the rule of law to develop a civil society.” The dominate religion in the post-conflict country is not irrelevant, but it is not dispositive either. Policies like the ones I promoted have been put forth in countries with Christian, Islamic, and indigenous faith populations. It just so happens that at this time I live in a Muslim majority country, and other Muslim majority countries are going through violent shifts similar to those that Kosovo experienced. It is hard not to see parallels; but like all parallels involving history and culture this one is also imperfect. That being said, I would promote what the U.S. did in Kosovo for a nation of any faith, presuming the support for the U.S. in that country was organic in nature.
2. Inaction is not an option.
Simply put, U.S. inaction is not an option after a successful, pro-democratic overthrow of an autocratic government. And here is where I think the Kosovo parallels are most crucial to note. Our lasting success and appreciation in Kosovo comes out of assisting a conflict in progress and then not leaving after the dust settled. Unlike in Iraq or Vietnam, where there was no organic support of U.S. involvement (excluding Kurdish Northern Iraq), Kosovo, Libya, and possibly Syria all show evidence that there is support for the U.S. and the ideals the U.S. stands for. The public rejection of violence against the U.S. after the Benghazi attack is just one example of this support. To not build on this local support is to waste a valuable opportunity to help a people rebuild their country so that they can join the democratic and liberal world after years of being subjects in Muammar Gadhafi’s ostracized Libya. Think of the U.S. and France’s long term support of each other. It started because France took on the British navy during the American Revolution. What I see now is the beginning of a diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and Libya in a region where America lacks allies. I may ultimately be wrong on this point; however, to not try at all would be the greatest mistake.
3. It’s our world to lose.
The current liberal world order (e.g. one with strong democracies, human rights, and free trade, etc.) is not here because it was predestined or on account of humanity’s evolution. The U.S. did not win the Cold War because of inevitability. We do not, as it should be apparent, live in a period of time beyond history’s reproach. We live in a heavily democratized world with expansive free trade and significant peace because America and her allies have put their effort into creating it. This world order exists because pro-democratic allies made it exist.
Keeping that in mind, if America does not continue to invest in governments, institutions, and people that promote ideals similar to hers, the current world order is at risk and the all benefits that come with it. Why would that be? Simply, a vacuum would be created in America's absence. If America were to decide to bow out of promoting democracy and free trade, an ideological vacuum would occur and most of our stronger pro-democracy allies are not in a place to do much to fill that vacuum (France and Germany are dealing with Greece; Japan is recovering from natural disasters and a weak economy; England is looking more and more inward). To risk filling that vacuum with ideals from anti-liberal powers (Russia, China) seems ill advised to say the least.
The larger point of the original article was that America needs to persevere and to remain a strong promoter of the ideals cherished at home. To do nothing is to concede an ideological battle that we do not benefit from by losing. This is why investing in long-term promotion of economic development, education, gender equality, and the rule of law to develop a civil society in post-Arab Spring states is imperative. And with Kosovo as my example, I think it is possible.
