ILF POST

By Mary Catherine Bateson Campaign rhetoric suggests that, while voters believe the policies of the Bush administration are not working, Democrats need to offer a specific “plan” for getting out of Iraq with some modicum of honor and responsibility and ending the constant loss of lives and billions of dollars. I want to suggest that we need to look at the basic premises of our foreign policy first and that Democrats need to take a stand on certain principles that can become the basis for a plan when they are accepted. These six principles, which contrast sharply with current policy, might offer a starting point.

1. Sustained interaction. It is sometimes useful in diplomacy to break off diplomatic relations or to impose economic sanctions, but we need a mechanism to limit these isolating policies. One example would be legislation that would require that sanctions be limited to specific categories such as armaments (so that ordinary people do not suffer) and expire unless renewed after three years. In that way there is a motivation for ameliorating relations. Such a policy would mean that by now we would be in effective relationship with Iran instead of reinforcing the very policies that trouble us. The flow of ideas and of goods works in our favor.
2. Multilateralism. The invasion of Iraq was, by bribery and bullying, disguised as a “coalition of the willing,” but with the exception of Great Britain it was nearly unilateral. We chose to ignore the United Nations. Opinion around the world, rejecting the faulty intelligence used to persuade the American people, was largely against the invasion.
3. Regional autonomy. World conflicts may develop from regional conflicts, so U.S. policy should promote regional solidarity and regional efforts to control conflicts that may spread. Whatever happens in Iraq, the war has exacerbated conflict between Shiites and Sunnis and between Kurds and other ethnic groups that will resonate in neighboring countries, and partition might make things worse. The search for peace between Israel and her neighbors needs to be pursued in an even-handed manner that respects the rights and interests of all the populations involved.
4. No preemptive war. The Bush administration has claimed for the United States the right to make preemptive war, partly by classifying the criminal acts of terrorists as constituting a war against which any aggressive policy can be regarded as defense. We should reaffirm our commitment to “no first use” with a broader commitment not to initiate military conflict.
5. Respect for democracy. We have followed the ambiguous policy of trying to impose democracy while attempting to overthrow popularly elected governments with policies we dislike. We should promise recognition and respect for any government elected by an internationally certified process — and invite inspectors to view our own elections.
6. Commitment to human rights. We not only violate human rights overtly by such scandalous behavior as the torture at Abu Ghraib, we violate human rights implicitly by largely ignoring Iraqi civilian deaths — and by ignoring situations around the world where rights are violated.

Is this a “plan”? It does not provide for packing up our soldiers and bringing them home at once. But these principles suggest certain steps that could be taken fairly quickly. The most immediate is an international conference bringing together regional powers and international players about what to do in Iraq — and how they can support it when it is no longer the United States going it alone. The second is an invitation to the United Nations and/or other international bodies to join in the search for a solution. These two steps should include reestablishing diplomatic and trade relations with Iran, as well as starting the process with North Korea and Cuba. They would suggest a reaffirmation of international agreements from which the United States has been withholding support, including the United Nations millennium goals, and to global cooperation in addressing world programs such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

There is an eerie similarity between certain aspects of our foreign policy and things that are going wrong at home. The polarization and general nastiness of American politics play themselves out in the willingness to brand whole nations as evil, to attack preemptively, and to refuse civil interactions. The hypocrisy that shows up in domestic scandals and efforts to limit access to the ballot box is echoed in our sanctimonious support of democracy only so far as it serves our ends. The gradual erosion of rights of American citizens is reflected in our willingness to violate human rights in the treatment of terrorist suspects and to let extremes of poverty, aggression, and even genocide drag on.

Let’s have a philosophy first and then a plan.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 31st, 2006 at 1:15 pm and is filed under Mary Catherine Bateson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.