[quote]It would rather seem you don't object to overturning elections, funding opposition guerillas and supporting tyrants too.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]our tacit support of the Junta<hr></blockquote>
I absolutely agree - the US has supported plenty of tyrants. But it's a strawman argument to condemn the US for not invading and evicting every non-democratic government around the world. In many cases, these governments would have emerged with or without the "tacit support" of the US. In most others, the alternative to "tacit support" was either fortmenting a pointless civil war or washing our hands of the region altogether. Instead, the steady US policy was to encourage those regimes to transition to democracy as soon as possible. And guess what? It's worked. It was a far-sighted, patient policy that has demonstrated excellent results in producing democratic governments with healthy economies:
Taiwan, South Korea, Phillipines, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Mexico, Malaysia...
Heck, you might as well even add Russia and the Eastern European nations to that list. Should we have invaded Poland to liberate them from their oppressive regime? Of course not. Did we give plenty of "tacit approval" to the USSR? Sure. Does that make it our fault that it took 50+ years for democratic regimes to emerge? I don't think so.
your list of "democracies" is strange. history lessons there must be as well studied as geography.
Taiwan, for example, was taken over by Chiang-Kai-Shek's Kuomintang (KMT) in 1948 when the Communist party booted them out of China.
The KMT massacred indigenous Taiwanese people (documented in several uprisings) and installed themselves as the "official government of all China" despite being forced out of China and not being invited to rule in Taiwan.
From 1949 to 1986, there were _NO_ elections in Taiwan. Martial Law was in place. The same 70 and 80 year old guys who were elected in 1948 claimed still to be the "legitimate representatives of all China" and refused to give up power or stand for re-election for almost 40 years. Opposition political parties were banned until 1988. Some would-be candidates who opposed the ruling party were jailed.
The irony of this was that the KMT claimed legitimacy over the Mainland Communists partly because there was no 'democracy' on the Mainland either... different set of 70 and 80 year old guys who refused to stand for election, yet claimed to know best what their citizens (sometimes at gunpoint) wanted.
The 1990's saw the first election in Taiwan since 1949, and believe it or not, they even got a locally-born leader (rather than a gunpoint invader from the mainland) after only a half-century of American-supported "democracy".
The last election in Taiwan even got the opposition DPP party to break the 40+ year grip of the KMT and changed a few of the old guard... with US support like that, it's a wonder more elderly powercravers don't cling to power
to recap... from 1948 to 1986 - lots of US backing for an anti-communist despot, but Zero real democracy (freedoms, multi-party elections, etc).
Philippines? Remember old man Ferdinand Marcos and his crazy shoe-buying wife Imelda fixing elections and robbing the country blind?
[quote]to recap... from 1948 to 1986 - lots of US backing for an anti-communist despot, but Zero real democracy (freedoms, multi-party elections, etc).<hr></blockquote>
I'm well aware of the politcal history of Taiwan. The point, of course, is that TODAY Taiwan has a vibrant democracy that could not have emerged without US protection and encouragement. The same story holds for South Korea, and, indeed, the Phillipines. A patient policy does not equal the absence of a policy, or the presence of a converse policy.
Your argument is fascinating, though, because I think it perfectly represents modern anti-Americanism. That is, when things are bad, the US deserves all blame - for the US is omnipotent. When things are good, the US deserves no credit - for the local people are nobly resisting the evil policies of the US. You breezily dismiss the progress in Taiwan since 1986 as irrelevant, or indeed, as proof that without the US it could have happened decades ago. That simply isn't true. Without the US, there would be one China, and Taiwan would be a province of it. Without the strong and active support of the US, democracy in Taiwan would have gone nowhere.
Further, the US, to your evident dismay, is not omnipotent. It's rather difficult to "install" a democracy short of invasion and occupation. Are you really suggesting we should have done that to Taiwan in the 50s or 60s? Or that we should have re-occupied the Phillipines to get rid of Marcos? Why not invade the USSR to depose Stalin?
[quote]The event most responsible for the groundswell that eventually led to the US's involvement in WWI<hr></blockquote>
I'm not I'd agree with you there in detail or in the wider perspective. The Lusitania was a shock, to be sure, but US entry into the war was anything but assured until Germany applied unrestricted submarine warfare in earnest in 1917. At best, you can argue that the Lusitania began the process of priming the pump. But, like the Trent affair, there was no guarantee that priming was going to produce anything. So you're arguing that 1915 was the start of American involvement in Europe? And I guess 1948 is supposed to be the US's post-WWII "reengagement" with the world? So 1915-1948 is the US's "heir-apparent" period? Fair enough, but seems a little forced.
Actually, the rise and fall of the UK's role in preserving world peace might be a better fit. 1915 marked the formation of Haig's great UK conscript army, the first time (ever) that the UK had fully committed itself to fielding massive land armies in Europe to preserve the balance of power. As far as geopolitical events go, this dwarfs the Lusitania in importance. It kept Germany temporarily in check, but more importantly, began a period of massive overstretch and decline for the UK. It left the UK with commitments in post-WWI Europe that it was simply incapable of keeping (even with the aid of France). 1947/1948, on the other hand, marked the UK's withdrawal fom most of its global commitments, and the passing of the torch to the US. 1915-1948: the twilight of UK power.
I agree, Kennan's "Long Telegram" is a fascinating read. There's a lot of other gems in the diplomatic archives, too. I'd especially recommend reading through the archives from East and South East Asia from 1945-1949. There were a lot of brilliant people working for the State Dept - and it's a shame the government didn't listen to more of them before it made bad policies.
[aside] Heh, speaking of which, that makes for a funny story that seems fitting to the times. Who's to blame for the Vietnam War? France! The US liasons to Ho Chi Minh after WWII recommended that we support his nationalist movement, and reported that he was willing to even host US military bases if we recognized his government. But this was around the time of NATO's formation, and the US wanted to allow Germany to rearm to bolster NATO's ground forces. Naturally, France (who, as an occupying power, had a veto over such things) was adamantly opposed. They finally relented, as long as we helped them try to recoccupy Indochina. A nice tit-for-tat, and the rest is history. Not so funny, really.
*Your* history class taught you that West Germany wasn't under the military occupation of the Western Allies fom 1945-1955? I find that difficult to believe.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
And that equals "US rule"?
It makes a pleasant change for someone to be trying to put words into their *own* mouth.
I'm well aware of the politcal history of Taiwan. The point, of course, is that TODAY Taiwan has a vibrant democracy that could not have emerged without US protection and encouragement. The same story holds for South Korea, and, indeed, the Phillipines. A patient policy does not equal the absence of a policy, or the presence of a converse policy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so the end (maybe 40+ years later some democracy), justifies the means (support for "democracy-in-name-only" but basically just propping up undemocratic <but anti-communist dictators are ok> regimes wherever the mood takes)??
seems to me the honest interpretation of that would be that "supporting democracy" is frequently a bogus veneer, and the real concern is "anybody but those eeevil communists, and we'll stroke them as 'democratic' in our pr spin because we can't justify just propping up an equally oppressive strongman otherwise"
seems like an exercise in convenient semantics more than a standing support of free multi-party elections as policy.
but maybe 'democracy' means something else there
[quote]<strong>
Your argument is fascinating, though, because I think it perfectly represents modern anti-Americanism. That is, when things are bad, the US deserves all blame - for the US is omnipotent. When things are good, the US deserves no credit - for the local people are nobly resisting the evil policies of the US.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
not sure if that's a compliment on a reasoned argument or an attempt to twist it into a strawman...
nowhere is anti-americanism brought into it... we're discussing blowback (particularly of the US variety), and you're bringing up a list of "successfully democratic with our help" which includes oddly undemocratic examples.
correcting a seeming historical whitewash of some holes is neither pro nor anti-american, per se... unless you want to read it that way... i'll happily riff on how lame the British Empire was and what a poor job the UK did at securing the rights of Hong Kong people in the face of Chinese Human Rights pre/post-Tiananmen Square.
it's often about the self-serving interests of the 'imperial power' more than support for rights and freedoms around the world
some places the US support has come with more conditions than others... sometimes the deals are above board quid pro quo where specific aid is tied to humanitarian or other improved behaviour, sometimes it's Ollie North, sometimes it's worse, sometimes better.
sometimes the US interests have more to do with the neighbourhood, sometimes with the primary export (oil), sometimes despite the primary export (drugs)... we should also examine motive... ditto UK and India/China (Opium) at some points.
it might be more practical to also measure the relative degree of 'democracy' traditionally present in the society before/after/despite/because
back the junta? get undemocratic regime whose death squads eventually become bad PR blowback when it is learned who trained/supported them.
back the little guy who fights for elections? some like to argue that "certain societies" understand power more than democracy... lame.
back nelson mandela (known terrorist and past communist *run away*, but asking for elections, not his turn as idi amin)? get the apartheid regime to crumble (thanks commonwealth sanctions!), and end up with an actual democracy (fighting racist hatred, but with real progress)
[quote]<strong>
You breezily dismiss the progress in Taiwan since 1986 as irrelevant, or indeed, as proof that without the US it could have happened decades ago. That simply isn't true. Without the US, there would be one China, and Taiwan would be a province of it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't dismiss the progress since 1986, I celebrate it and bemoan the fact it wasn't pushed for earlier. While working in broadcasting there in 88-90, I probably watched more of it happen first hand than your average congressman did.
Realizing that Generalissimo Chiang was never going to change his undemocratic views in the face of "bandits" on the mainland, a case might be made that nothing would have happened until his death anyway, but the military umbrella that shielded Taiwan from China does not equal "support for democracy", since democracy was not present until the late 80s.
[quote]<strong>
Without the strong and active support of the US, democracy in Taiwan would have gone nowhere.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you seem to be equating a single contributing cause (US military support for an undemocratic regime for 40 years) to the final effect (free, fair, multi-party elections)
Facts are that Taiwan had been a bit of an international outcast since the Chinese pressured countries to switch Official recognition and the UN seat back in 1979 (Canada one of the first to back Mao instead of Chiang)
Taiwan and South Africa were number 1 trading partners at one point because both were on the outside of economic or political embargoes.
Taiwan had faced growing street protests (more since Tiananmen) from its indigineous population on the anniversary of the Feb 22 Massacre, demanding that the old guard KMT 80 year olds make way for people from the island, and turn governor/mayor/judges posts from appointed by the ruling regime to elected by the citizens.
Much of this political pressure was despite a formally expressed Chinese policy to invade Taiwan if anybody there tried to claim independence (one china, remember). Given that the -only- underground party up until 1990 was the DPP (unofficially arguing for a form of independence), it is apparent that grassroots demands for change came despite overt Chinese threats to invade if this party won power. The KMT also sought to restrict this new local party.
Desire to enter international trade bodies like the WTO had more direct influence on changes to Taiwanese government policy since the 80s than US fleets in the days of Jinmen and Matsu did, or negotiations on military sales did (if anything, US military sales to Taiwan inflamed relations with China).
In order to participate in the WTO, the Taiwanese government was compelled to show more transparency in government, regulatory, legal, and financial bodies, and as a result, many policy changes that led to the election rather than the political appointment of leaders.
China, slower to grab the WTO ring, must make many of the same changes if it wants to play.
[quote]<strong>
Further, the US, to your evident dismay, is not omnipotent. It's rather difficult to "install" a democracy short of invasion and occupation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so when the US actually does invade and meet the occupation condition, we should see a democracy afterwards?
Hello Kuwait... can you hear me now?
oh wait... you mean "democracy" was only the facade, the real reason was "power and influence for our designated 'friend'"?
[quote]<strong>
Are you really suggesting we should have done that to Taiwan in the 50s or 60s? Or that we should have re-occupied the Phillipines to get rid of Marcos? Why not invade the USSR to depose Stalin?
[quote]no, now you're just getting pissy because the air is going out of the "US magic wand of democracy" hyperbole at the other extreme<hr></blockquote>
There is no "magic wand of democracy". That's rather the point of this. If there were, you could justly blame the US for not waving it at every nation in the world. Creating democracy is a long, hard, slow process that doesn't always work, and usually not on the first try (see: France, 1789-1945). The best a nation can do is try to create and maintain conditions amenable to its emergence. The US has consistently done that, even acknowledging that the US has rarely directly undermined democratic regimes, and more often tacitly and actively supported undemocratic regimes. On the vanishly rare occasions when the US has occupied a nation, democracy is batting 1.000. In the vast majority of occasions, the US has refused to go that far, because of concerns about local and international approval.
But that leads into the "why didn't we do something more drastic about X" argument, which is a fundamental part of the current anti-Americanism, isn't it? Because we refused to act drastically on so many other occasions (n.b., usually out of concern for the opinions of others, as most recently in 1991 in Kuwait and Iraq), why should anyone trust us to do it here and now? Which, restated, says: if we don't or can't do it all the time, why even do it once? Not that I would ever wish you be so unfortunate, but should you ever find yourself in the ER, ask your doc that same question as he tries to save your life.
Hold the US to an impossibly high standard, evaluate its particular policy decisions in a complete vacuum, and it will surely fail. But that hardly seems honest, does it?
[quote]nowhere is anti-americanism brought into it... we're discussing blowback (particularly of the US variety), and you're bringing up a list of "successfully democratic with our help" which includes oddly undemocratic examples. <hr></blockquote>
I have to comment on this again, too. All of the examples I cited are estalished democracies today, and it would take a pretty dramatic change in world affairs for any of them to "fall off the wagon" at this point. Obviously, all of them were non-democratic in the past - we don't try to point to the US's role in emergence of British representative government because it would be patently absurd.
Now, you are willing to lay the blame on the US for "keeping" them undemocratic, while offering it none of the credit for their eventually becoming democratic (but the WTO? Which is, after all, a direct descendant of the US-inspired and -led post-war trade institutions). If that isn't anti-American, it's surely a selective and biased point of view. It seems much more reasonable to say that the US created conditions in which all of them were able to undergo that transformation themselves, and that the US has supported them since.
Regarding Taiwan, the US wasn't defending an "undemocratic" Taiwanese government, it was (and still is) defending an "independent" Taiwanese government. And as much as people like to dismiss the US as ham-handed, it's done quite an impressive ballet over the last 30 years to permit a democratic, prosperous and de facto independent Taiwan to emerge in the shadow of a often-hostile PRC. And yes, American markets, American investment, American diplomacy, and American military power were all absolutely vital to that occuring.
On the vanishly rare occasions when the US has occupied a nation, democracy is batting 1.000. In the vast majority of occasions, the US has refused to go that far, because of concerns about local and international approval.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so the promised US delivery of democracy in Kuwait (Bush41) was just smoke and mirrors? some new fuzzy math to calculate that batting average?
their immediate gulf neighbours have _how much faith_ in the claim to "deliver the same democracy to Iraq"?
US-delivered Kuwaiti democracy: all foam, no beer
US-delivered Iraqi democracy: colour me skeptical
i don't disagree there are some cases where pressure has, in fact, helped... but to claim that spreading democracy is the direct derivative of US policy isn't born out by the data cited so far
[quote]so the promised US delivery of democracy in Kuwait (Bush41) was just smoke and mirrors? some new fuzzy math to calculate that batting average?<hr></blockquote>
Recall for me the name of the commanding general of Allied Occupation Forces, Kuwait? Did he report to CINC, US Occupation, Iraq?
This is exaclty what I'm talking about. We didn't even try, because we were so afraid of what others would think if we did. None of our allies in 1991 would have "permitted" an American occupation of Kuwait, any more than they would have an occupation of Iraq. So we did neither. And now we get blamed for bowing to the wishes of others, and as you correctly point out, lose a big chunk of our credibility. Two sins of omissions do not equal a good deed. The only way to make good is to deliver.
I have to comment on this again, too. All of the examples I cited are estalished democracies today, and it would take a pretty dramatic change in world affairs for any of them to "fall off the wagon" at this point. Obviously, all of them were non-democratic in the past - we don't try to point to the US's role in emergence of British representative government because it would be patently absurd.
Now, you are willing to lay the blame on the US for "keeping" them undemocratic, while offering it none of the credit for their eventually becoming democratic (but the WTO? Which is, after all, a direct descendant of the US-inspired and -led post-war trade institutions). If that isn't anti-American, it's surely a selective and biased point of view. It seems much more reasonable to say that the US created conditions in which all of them were able to undergo that transformation themselves, and that the US has supported them since.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't recall saying that the US "kept them undemocratic"... but perhaps supporting them for reasons other than their prediliction for democracy is a more honest appraisal of US interests than that any active attempt was made to use 'democracy' as the goal of change, rather than just "keep our friends in power/contain evil country x"
"US as role model of democracy" is a different argument, but you could easily exchange UK, France, Canada, much of the EU in similar category, and if you use the UN quality of life index as a marker of what societies people value as most desirable, the Swiss and Canadian cities top the index (less crime than USA).
to say "we started the ball, therefore all downhill progress is due to our push" is similarly bad logic... gravity helps.
we cannot deconstruct the geopolitical interconnections to test hypotheses of what would have happened in which parallel universe
we can, however, bring a more critical eye to claims of intent and motive that do not bear up under historical scrutiny
similarly, i'd jump on Belgians who claimed to justify past colonial expansion into west africa as motivated by the desire to "spread equality", given their appalling history of slavery there...
own the real reason and people may have more faith that future action is for equally honest and open motives
people remember the bogus Tonkin incident, they hear news of fabricated IAEA reports, and they're skeptical of US intent.
anti-americanism has nothing to do with it... purely a function of trust if the boy cries wolf or the witness is proven past perjury.
try looking without the tinted glasses.
as for who is truly responsible for democratic progress in these nations, one would hope that it would be citizens expecting similarly high standards of honesty and representative government... citizens fed up with being stiffed by undemocratic rule and willing to fight to change that. (external support is gravy)
[quote]to say "we started the ball, therefore all downhill progress is due to our push" is similarly bad logic... gravity helps<hr></blockquote>
It's not bad logic at all if you create the gravity. You don't really buy into that whole "End of History" stuff that says liberal democracy is the natural state of man, and the inevitable result of human social evolution, do you? I'm not equipped to argue political philisophy, but I have a hard time buying into that, given how rare it's been in human history. I'd suggest it's the result of a liberal world order maintained, at enomous expense, by the United States. And remember that it's not at all clear the US "profits" from this at all. In the 70s and 80s, it was cliche to say that the US was in steady state of decline, brought on by its global overstretch. It was only when the end of the Cold War relieved the burden considerably that the US rebounded.
Comments
[quote]our tacit support of the Junta<hr></blockquote>
I absolutely agree - the US has supported plenty of tyrants. But it's a strawman argument to condemn the US for not invading and evicting every non-democratic government around the world. In many cases, these governments would have emerged with or without the "tacit support" of the US. In most others, the alternative to "tacit support" was either fortmenting a pointless civil war or washing our hands of the region altogether. Instead, the steady US policy was to encourage those regimes to transition to democracy as soon as possible. And guess what? It's worked. It was a far-sighted, patient policy that has demonstrated excellent results in producing democratic governments with healthy economies:
Taiwan, South Korea, Phillipines, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Mexico, Malaysia...
Heck, you might as well even add Russia and the Eastern European nations to that list. Should we have invaded Poland to liberate them from their oppressive regime? Of course not. Did we give plenty of "tacit approval" to the USSR? Sure. Does that make it our fault that it took 50+ years for democratic regimes to emerge? I don't think so.
your list of "democracies" is strange. history lessons there must be as well studied as geography.
Taiwan, for example, was taken over by Chiang-Kai-Shek's Kuomintang (KMT) in 1948 when the Communist party booted them out of China.
The KMT massacred indigenous Taiwanese people (documented in several uprisings) and installed themselves as the "official government of all China" despite being forced out of China and not being invited to rule in Taiwan.
From 1949 to 1986, there were _NO_ elections in Taiwan. Martial Law was in place. The same 70 and 80 year old guys who were elected in 1948 claimed still to be the "legitimate representatives of all China" and refused to give up power or stand for re-election for almost 40 years. Opposition political parties were banned until 1988. Some would-be candidates who opposed the ruling party were jailed.
The irony of this was that the KMT claimed legitimacy over the Mainland Communists partly because there was no 'democracy' on the Mainland either... different set of 70 and 80 year old guys who refused to stand for election, yet claimed to know best what their citizens (sometimes at gunpoint) wanted.
The 1990's saw the first election in Taiwan since 1949, and believe it or not, they even got a locally-born leader (rather than a gunpoint invader from the mainland) after only a half-century of American-supported "democracy".
The last election in Taiwan even got the opposition DPP party to break the 40+ year grip of the KMT and changed a few of the old guard... with US support like that, it's a wonder more elderly powercravers don't cling to power
to recap... from 1948 to 1986 - lots of US backing for an anti-communist despot, but Zero real democracy (freedoms, multi-party elections, etc).
Philippines? Remember old man Ferdinand Marcos and his crazy shoe-buying wife Imelda fixing elections and robbing the country blind?
US backing sure made their democracy vital.
And how's that Kuwaiti democracy going, eh?
Any political parties? No.
Women allowed to vote? No.
Sharia laws off the books? No.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
tough to sell "we deliver democracy" as a US slogan when the recent record is so poor.
there are some cases where things have gone better, but your list of examples is poor.
I'm well aware of the politcal history of Taiwan. The point, of course, is that TODAY Taiwan has a vibrant democracy that could not have emerged without US protection and encouragement. The same story holds for South Korea, and, indeed, the Phillipines. A patient policy does not equal the absence of a policy, or the presence of a converse policy.
Your argument is fascinating, though, because I think it perfectly represents modern anti-Americanism. That is, when things are bad, the US deserves all blame - for the US is omnipotent. When things are good, the US deserves no credit - for the local people are nobly resisting the evil policies of the US. You breezily dismiss the progress in Taiwan since 1986 as irrelevant, or indeed, as proof that without the US it could have happened decades ago. That simply isn't true. Without the US, there would be one China, and Taiwan would be a province of it. Without the strong and active support of the US, democracy in Taiwan would have gone nowhere.
Further, the US, to your evident dismay, is not omnipotent. It's rather difficult to "install" a democracy short of invasion and occupation. Are you really suggesting we should have done that to Taiwan in the 50s or 60s? Or that we should have re-occupied the Phillipines to get rid of Marcos? Why not invade the USSR to depose Stalin?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
I'm not I'd agree with you there in detail or in the wider perspective. The Lusitania was a shock, to be sure, but US entry into the war was anything but assured until Germany applied unrestricted submarine warfare in earnest in 1917. At best, you can argue that the Lusitania began the process of priming the pump. But, like the Trent affair, there was no guarantee that priming was going to produce anything. So you're arguing that 1915 was the start of American involvement in Europe? And I guess 1948 is supposed to be the US's post-WWII "reengagement" with the world? So 1915-1948 is the US's "heir-apparent" period? Fair enough, but seems a little forced.
Actually, the rise and fall of the UK's role in preserving world peace might be a better fit. 1915 marked the formation of Haig's great UK conscript army, the first time (ever) that the UK had fully committed itself to fielding massive land armies in Europe to preserve the balance of power. As far as geopolitical events go, this dwarfs the Lusitania in importance. It kept Germany temporarily in check, but more importantly, began a period of massive overstretch and decline for the UK. It left the UK with commitments in post-WWI Europe that it was simply incapable of keeping (even with the aid of France). 1947/1948, on the other hand, marked the UK's withdrawal fom most of its global commitments, and the passing of the torch to the US. 1915-1948: the twilight of UK power.
I agree, Kennan's "Long Telegram" is a fascinating read. There's a lot of other gems in the diplomatic archives, too. I'd especially recommend reading through the archives from East and South East Asia from 1945-1949. There were a lot of brilliant people working for the State Dept - and it's a shame the government didn't listen to more of them before it made bad policies.
[aside] Heh, speaking of which, that makes for a funny story that seems fitting to the times. Who's to blame for the Vietnam War? France! The US liasons to Ho Chi Minh after WWII recommended that we support his nationalist movement, and reported that he was willing to even host US military bases if we recognized his government. But this was around the time of NATO's formation, and the US wanted to allow Germany to rearm to bolster NATO's ground forces. Naturally, France (who, as an occupying power, had a veto over such things) was adamantly opposed. They finally relented, as long as we helped them try to recoccupy Indochina. A nice tit-for-tat, and the rest is history. Not so funny, really.
<strong>
*Your* history class taught you that West Germany wasn't under the military occupation of the Western Allies fom 1945-1955? I find that difficult to believe.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
And that equals "US rule"?
It makes a pleasant change for someone to be trying to put words into their *own* mouth.
<strong>
I'm well aware of the politcal history of Taiwan. The point, of course, is that TODAY Taiwan has a vibrant democracy that could not have emerged without US protection and encouragement. The same story holds for South Korea, and, indeed, the Phillipines. A patient policy does not equal the absence of a policy, or the presence of a converse policy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so the end (maybe 40+ years later some democracy), justifies the means (support for "democracy-in-name-only" but basically just propping up undemocratic <but anti-communist dictators are ok> regimes wherever the mood takes)??
seems to me the honest interpretation of that would be that "supporting democracy" is frequently a bogus veneer, and the real concern is "anybody but those eeevil communists, and we'll stroke them as 'democratic' in our pr spin because we can't justify just propping up an equally oppressive strongman otherwise"
seems like an exercise in convenient semantics more than a standing support of free multi-party elections as policy.
but maybe 'democracy' means something else there
[quote]<strong>
Your argument is fascinating, though, because I think it perfectly represents modern anti-Americanism. That is, when things are bad, the US deserves all blame - for the US is omnipotent. When things are good, the US deserves no credit - for the local people are nobly resisting the evil policies of the US.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
not sure if that's a compliment on a reasoned argument or an attempt to twist it into a strawman...
nowhere is anti-americanism brought into it... we're discussing blowback (particularly of the US variety), and you're bringing up a list of "successfully democratic with our help" which includes oddly undemocratic examples.
correcting a seeming historical whitewash of some holes is neither pro nor anti-american, per se... unless you want to read it that way... i'll happily riff on how lame the British Empire was and what a poor job the UK did at securing the rights of Hong Kong people in the face of Chinese Human Rights pre/post-Tiananmen Square.
it's often about the self-serving interests of the 'imperial power' more than support for rights and freedoms around the world
some places the US support has come with more conditions than others... sometimes the deals are above board quid pro quo where specific aid is tied to humanitarian or other improved behaviour, sometimes it's Ollie North, sometimes it's worse, sometimes better.
sometimes the US interests have more to do with the neighbourhood, sometimes with the primary export (oil), sometimes despite the primary export (drugs)... we should also examine motive... ditto UK and India/China (Opium) at some points.
it might be more practical to also measure the relative degree of 'democracy' traditionally present in the society before/after/despite/because
back the junta? get undemocratic regime whose death squads eventually become bad PR blowback when it is learned who trained/supported them.
back the little guy who fights for elections? some like to argue that "certain societies" understand power more than democracy... lame.
back nelson mandela (known terrorist and past communist *run away*, but asking for elections, not his turn as idi amin)? get the apartheid regime to crumble (thanks commonwealth sanctions!), and end up with an actual democracy (fighting racist hatred, but with real progress)
[quote]<strong>
You breezily dismiss the progress in Taiwan since 1986 as irrelevant, or indeed, as proof that without the US it could have happened decades ago. That simply isn't true. Without the US, there would be one China, and Taiwan would be a province of it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't dismiss the progress since 1986, I celebrate it and bemoan the fact it wasn't pushed for earlier. While working in broadcasting there in 88-90, I probably watched more of it happen first hand than your average congressman did.
Realizing that Generalissimo Chiang was never going to change his undemocratic views in the face of "bandits" on the mainland, a case might be made that nothing would have happened until his death anyway, but the military umbrella that shielded Taiwan from China does not equal "support for democracy", since democracy was not present until the late 80s.
[quote]<strong>
Without the strong and active support of the US, democracy in Taiwan would have gone nowhere.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
you seem to be equating a single contributing cause (US military support for an undemocratic regime for 40 years) to the final effect (free, fair, multi-party elections)
Facts are that Taiwan had been a bit of an international outcast since the Chinese pressured countries to switch Official recognition and the UN seat back in 1979 (Canada one of the first to back Mao instead of Chiang)
Taiwan and South Africa were number 1 trading partners at one point because both were on the outside of economic or political embargoes.
Taiwan had faced growing street protests (more since Tiananmen) from its indigineous population on the anniversary of the Feb 22 Massacre, demanding that the old guard KMT 80 year olds make way for people from the island, and turn governor/mayor/judges posts from appointed by the ruling regime to elected by the citizens.
Much of this political pressure was despite a formally expressed Chinese policy to invade Taiwan if anybody there tried to claim independence (one china, remember). Given that the -only- underground party up until 1990 was the DPP (unofficially arguing for a form of independence), it is apparent that grassroots demands for change came despite overt Chinese threats to invade if this party won power. The KMT also sought to restrict this new local party.
Desire to enter international trade bodies like the WTO had more direct influence on changes to Taiwanese government policy since the 80s than US fleets in the days of Jinmen and Matsu did, or negotiations on military sales did (if anything, US military sales to Taiwan inflamed relations with China).
In order to participate in the WTO, the Taiwanese government was compelled to show more transparency in government, regulatory, legal, and financial bodies, and as a result, many policy changes that led to the election rather than the political appointment of leaders.
China, slower to grab the WTO ring, must make many of the same changes if it wants to play.
[quote]<strong>
Further, the US, to your evident dismay, is not omnipotent. It's rather difficult to "install" a democracy short of invasion and occupation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so when the US actually does invade and meet the occupation condition, we should see a democracy afterwards?
Hello Kuwait... can you hear me now?
oh wait... you mean "democracy" was only the facade, the real reason was "power and influence for our designated 'friend'"?
[quote]<strong>
Are you really suggesting we should have done that to Taiwan in the 50s or 60s? Or that we should have re-occupied the Phillipines to get rid of Marcos? Why not invade the USSR to depose Stalin?
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, now you're just getting pissy because the air is going out of the "US magic wand of democracy" hyperbole at the other extreme
just trying to clarify
There is no "magic wand of democracy". That's rather the point of this. If there were, you could justly blame the US for not waving it at every nation in the world. Creating democracy is a long, hard, slow process that doesn't always work, and usually not on the first try (see: France, 1789-1945). The best a nation can do is try to create and maintain conditions amenable to its emergence. The US has consistently done that, even acknowledging that the US has rarely directly undermined democratic regimes, and more often tacitly and actively supported undemocratic regimes. On the vanishly rare occasions when the US has occupied a nation, democracy is batting 1.000. In the vast majority of occasions, the US has refused to go that far, because of concerns about local and international approval.
But that leads into the "why didn't we do something more drastic about X" argument, which is a fundamental part of the current anti-Americanism, isn't it? Because we refused to act drastically on so many other occasions (n.b., usually out of concern for the opinions of others, as most recently in 1991 in Kuwait and Iraq), why should anyone trust us to do it here and now? Which, restated, says: if we don't or can't do it all the time, why even do it once? Not that I would ever wish you be so unfortunate, but should you ever find yourself in the ER, ask your doc that same question as he tries to save your life.
Hold the US to an impossibly high standard, evaluate its particular policy decisions in a complete vacuum, and it will surely fail. But that hardly seems honest, does it?
I have to comment on this again, too. All of the examples I cited are estalished democracies today, and it would take a pretty dramatic change in world affairs for any of them to "fall off the wagon" at this point. Obviously, all of them were non-democratic in the past - we don't try to point to the US's role in emergence of British representative government because it would be patently absurd.
Now, you are willing to lay the blame on the US for "keeping" them undemocratic, while offering it none of the credit for their eventually becoming democratic (but the WTO? Which is, after all, a direct descendant of the US-inspired and -led post-war trade institutions). If that isn't anti-American, it's surely a selective and biased point of view. It seems much more reasonable to say that the US created conditions in which all of them were able to undergo that transformation themselves, and that the US has supported them since.
Regarding Taiwan, the US wasn't defending an "undemocratic" Taiwanese government, it was (and still is) defending an "independent" Taiwanese government. And as much as people like to dismiss the US as ham-handed, it's done quite an impressive ballet over the last 30 years to permit a democratic, prosperous and de facto independent Taiwan to emerge in the shadow of a often-hostile PRC. And yes, American markets, American investment, American diplomacy, and American military power were all absolutely vital to that occuring.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>
<strong>
On the vanishly rare occasions when the US has occupied a nation, democracy is batting 1.000. In the vast majority of occasions, the US has refused to go that far, because of concerns about local and international approval.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
so the promised US delivery of democracy in Kuwait (Bush41) was just smoke and mirrors? some new fuzzy math to calculate that batting average?
their immediate gulf neighbours have _how much faith_ in the claim to "deliver the same democracy to Iraq"?
US-delivered Kuwaiti democracy: all foam, no beer
US-delivered Iraqi democracy: colour me skeptical
i don't disagree there are some cases where pressure has, in fact, helped... but to claim that spreading democracy is the direct derivative of US policy isn't born out by the data cited so far
Recall for me the name of the commanding general of Allied Occupation Forces, Kuwait? Did he report to CINC, US Occupation, Iraq?
This is exaclty what I'm talking about. We didn't even try, because we were so afraid of what others would think if we did. None of our allies in 1991 would have "permitted" an American occupation of Kuwait, any more than they would have an occupation of Iraq. So we did neither. And now we get blamed for bowing to the wishes of others, and as you correctly point out, lose a big chunk of our credibility. Two sins of omissions do not equal a good deed. The only way to make good is to deliver.
<strong>
I have to comment on this again, too. All of the examples I cited are estalished democracies today, and it would take a pretty dramatic change in world affairs for any of them to "fall off the wagon" at this point. Obviously, all of them were non-democratic in the past - we don't try to point to the US's role in emergence of British representative government because it would be patently absurd.
Now, you are willing to lay the blame on the US for "keeping" them undemocratic, while offering it none of the credit for their eventually becoming democratic (but the WTO? Which is, after all, a direct descendant of the US-inspired and -led post-war trade institutions). If that isn't anti-American, it's surely a selective and biased point of view. It seems much more reasonable to say that the US created conditions in which all of them were able to undergo that transformation themselves, and that the US has supported them since.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't recall saying that the US "kept them undemocratic"... but perhaps supporting them for reasons other than their prediliction for democracy is a more honest appraisal of US interests than that any active attempt was made to use 'democracy' as the goal of change, rather than just "keep our friends in power/contain evil country x"
"US as role model of democracy" is a different argument, but you could easily exchange UK, France, Canada, much of the EU in similar category, and if you use the UN quality of life index as a marker of what societies people value as most desirable, the Swiss and Canadian cities top the index (less crime than USA).
to say "we started the ball, therefore all downhill progress is due to our push" is similarly bad logic... gravity helps.
we cannot deconstruct the geopolitical interconnections to test hypotheses of what would have happened in which parallel universe
we can, however, bring a more critical eye to claims of intent and motive that do not bear up under historical scrutiny
similarly, i'd jump on Belgians who claimed to justify past colonial expansion into west africa as motivated by the desire to "spread equality", given their appalling history of slavery there...
own the real reason and people may have more faith that future action is for equally honest and open motives
people remember the bogus Tonkin incident, they hear news of fabricated IAEA reports, and they're skeptical of US intent.
anti-americanism has nothing to do with it... purely a function of trust if the boy cries wolf or the witness is proven past perjury.
try looking without the tinted glasses.
as for who is truly responsible for democratic progress in these nations, one would hope that it would be citizens expecting similarly high standards of honesty and representative government... citizens fed up with being stiffed by undemocratic rule and willing to fight to change that. (external support is gravy)
It's not bad logic at all if you create the gravity. You don't really buy into that whole "End of History" stuff that says liberal democracy is the natural state of man, and the inevitable result of human social evolution, do you? I'm not equipped to argue political philisophy, but I have a hard time buying into that, given how rare it's been in human history. I'd suggest it's the result of a liberal world order maintained, at enomous expense, by the United States. And remember that it's not at all clear the US "profits" from this at all. In the 70s and 80s, it was cliche to say that the US was in steady state of decline, brought on by its global overstretch. It was only when the end of the Cold War relieved the burden considerably that the US rebounded.
[ 03-11-2003: Message edited by: Towel ]</p>