Alexandros Petersen is Director of Research at the Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics.
"If you believe in the cause of freedom, then proclaim it, live it and protect it, for humanity's future depends on it."
In the midst of democratic tumult across the Middle East, Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s oft-repeated words ring as true as they ever did in the struggle against totalitarianism during the Cold War. He is perhaps best known for the admiration “neocons" had for him, but as a ranking member of the Armed Serves Committee, Senator Jackson was widely considered a realistic and sagacious steward of American power and influence. His legendary decisiveness and insight are sorely missing in an administration that seems to have been caught flat-footed in responding not just to the reformist groundswell across the Middle East, but also to its inevitable violent realities, currently on display in Libya.
Many have already noted that “the neoconservatives were right” about not precluding revolution and representative government for the Middle East. The real question is about what policies the United States should adopt moving forward. President Obama should take a page out of an old Democrat senator’s playbook and announce a Jacksonian approach to developments in the Middle East. This would be predicated on the concept of “democratic geopolitics,” not blindly idealistic or cold-hearted, but hard-headed and principled.
Scoop Jackson was right in his unflinching belief that democratic governance should be encouraged globally, that it ought to have no borders of geography, culture, language or religion, and that extant democracies should support one another in approaching authoritarian and totalitarian states. He was right to highlight the grave human rights abuses of non-representative governments, while neither wide-eyed nor shrill in expressing his convictions. Scoop’s insistence that governance be a criterion in international affairs was a result of a deep understanding of a world system profoundly threatening to the security of the United States and its allies.
A “democratic geopolitics” approach would mean no if's and/or but's about the imperative to contribute to the ouster of the remnants of Gaddafi’s odious regime, with significant resources devoted to building democratic institutions from scratch in a Libya badly scarred by totalitarianism. It would mean just as many, if not more diplomatic, advisorial and financial resources geared towards reforms and institution-building in Egypt, not just to bring better governance to the Egyptian people, but to ensure an ally in Cairo that will keep Israel secure from the south and never again allow the passage of Iranian or other hostile warships through the Suez canal.
Democratic geopolitics would mean a frank discussion with Bahrain’s leadership to ensure major reforms and a strengthening of the defense relationship with the strategically-located Gulf state. And, it would see preparations to contain the fallout from protest-induced instability in divided Yemen, to ensure that a new more representative government does not alienate any of the country’s factions now at dangerous loggerheads. These are not novel recommendations, but they are moves not currently being taken by the White House. Scoop would have doubtless been urging immediate action.
We are witnessing a Jacksonian Dawn in the Middle East. Now we just need a similar awakening towards “democratic geopolitics” in U.S. foreign policy. Moving forward, one can only hope that implementation is predicated upon one of Scoop’s other well-known adages: “in matters of national security, the best politics is no politics."
Comments