The Wrong Sort of Equality

not the real issue

On this very early morning (can’t sleep at home) I’ve decided to write briefly on what I feel to be the most important foreign policy question that should be facing 2008 candidates. Based on the media’s response the answer would seem overwhelmingly to be the war in Iraq. Each new motion, resolution and bill brings a volley of news reports and sends analysts into a frenzy parsing the actions of each candidate. Iraq is certainly in crises, and with each new suicide bomb or IED this is brought again into sharp focus. Yet although the war will almost certainly be around in 2008, it will in all likelihood be too late for any substantive policy change to take effect. After all, in many ways the damage has been done. Today Iraq represents a colossal terrorist training ground, a place for the global mujahadeen set to get in some practice against Western troops in Bahgdad and Haditha before applying their lessons to New York and London. Ethnic tensions could well lead to a civil war and potentially lead to genocide. Health conditions have spiraled downward, and today the life expectancy of a child is falling faster in Iraq than anywhere else in the world, with 1 in 8 dying from violence or illness before their 5th birthday. Finally, and most importantly, some 3000 American troops and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been lost to the conflict, men women and children that the victor of 2008 can never bring back. And so, when the commander in chief inherits Bush’s then 5 year old war, he will find that any policy course he takes will not erase most of the pernicious impacts of Iraq.

At this point, then, it seems that America’s democratic process is engaged in a sunk cost fallacy writ large. Though the war in Iraq is horrific, it is the consequence of decisions made years ago that are even today irreversible. Indeed, this truth has become fairly apparent if one looks to the actual Iraq policies of each serious 2008 candidate. Considering the positions held by all parties in question, one finds two broad sorts of boundaries. For the Democrats part, no one has dared to suggest and immediate withdraw. Barack Obama has called for a cap of 130,000 troops with a “phased” exit over an unannounced time period, Edwards has called for an immediate reduction of 40,000 (the anti surge?), and Hillary Clinton has called for “eventual withdrawal” (as opposed to, say, statehood for Iraq). While all of these positions allow for rhetorical claims of opposition to the war, none changes the reality on the ground. On the Republicans side, by contrast, we find no one in favor of seriously or qualitatively changing the way the war will be fought. Though some (Giuliani, McCain) support Bush’s surge and others do not, the general consensus seems to be that Iraq is badly off, that “strategy must change” and that “security is important”. Yet while all have spouted off familiar platitudes, none has dared to commit the US to any formal time period or timeframe to stay. What this suggests is that should the GOP win in 2008, the result will be a scramble to “declare victory” and then reduce troop levels as much as feasible. What this means is that whether the oath of office is taken by Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain, Giuliani or Edwards (or most of the others), the US will be doing roughly the same thing; fighting a messy war while very slowly leaving.

But if our next president can’t significantly change Iraq, what should he focus on? What is the most decisive foreign policy question that should be posed again and again to our crop of hopefuls? For me the answer seems clear: what are you prepared to do to keep the United States as the world superpower.

Today America’s power is slipping in the world. Since our height at the end of the Cold War, our economic and military influence has been increasingly challenged by up-and-coming rival powers. As globalization makes the world increasingly prosperous it has reduced America’s advantage on all fronts. Many both inside and outside of the US have seen this as positive. The argument here is that a unilateral US must be checked by nations like China, Iran, and Venezuela in order to ensure a diversity of views in the global arena. Once the US has been knocked from its high horse then all the world will unite and everyone will have a fair say. To us in the US, this seems to make intuitive sense; after all, it just doesn’t seem right that only one nation or group of nations should have their voices heard. Right?

But not all ideas are created equally. In the West we have adopted a framework that defends freedom, tolerance, and the liberty for each individual to best pursue their own potential. These are the ideas that have animated documents like the US constitution and the UN universal declaration of human rights, and have improved the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. What makes these norms unique, furthermore, is that they know no racial or cultural bounds; given time and adopted to local conditions, they are capable of providing a framework through which everyone can live together and prosper. Yet against this set of universally applicable beliefs rests the frameworks of the aspiring powers, namely the rule of self-determination. Within this view each nation ought to follow the Las Vegas rule: What happens here, stays here.

To see a preview of what such a world would be like, one need look no further than China’s actions over the past decade. One of the reasons for China’s growing influence has been that it does not “preach” to other nations as the US and the west have seemed to. Yet the reason this is so is that for China each nation should be allowed to do whatever they please, and provided they leave China alone they will not be bothered about it. On one hand, this means that if China gains the upper hand they certainly won’t actively try to crush democracies in the West. Unlike the USSR, for instance, China has no real global ideological agenda at this time. Yet the flip side of this coin is that just as Geneva will be allowed to keep their democracy, the janjaweed will be allowed to keep their genocide. In the era of China, Iran, and Venezuela the world that will emerge will shift from the ideal of individual equality to the ideal of civilizational equality, one in which genocide, slavery, secret police and oppression of women shares equal weight with we the people.



genocide doesn't deserve equality

Of course, none of this is to say that the US has been perfect as global steward. Far from it. Abuses like Abu Ghrahib and mistakes like the war in Iraq have justly sullied us in the eyes of the world, and we deserve to be held accountable. Additionally, with the rise of a united Europe, it seems likely that the US could someday get the best of both worlds; a multipolar strategic environment where nations hold each other in check while united in their fundamental beliefs. Finally, as time goes on, the liberalizing forces of the global market and the internet have begun to slowly change attitudes worldwide. China is increasingly a more responsible global citizen, in large part because in the status quo it must conform to a structure of values and institutions “imposed” by the US. If another few decades of such “imposition” can occur, pesky little things like freedom of press or human rights may actually come into vogue in their own right, at which point a power shift would be far less pernicious. Yet while that world is promising, it is not the world that will hit us if the US loses pre-eminence in the next couple of years. For the foreseeable future the choice is between a US power that imperfectly pursues the right sort of equality or a vacuum that strives only to protect the wrong sort of equality, one which presupposes no notion of rights, freedoms, or values that are inherent to human life. In such a world even if US decline is, in fact, inevitable, we should be doing our darndest to slow it down.

And so, candidates of 2008, I pose today’s question: how can we forestall this disaster? How can we keep our economy competitive, get our military home and repaired as quickly as possible, tighten our relationships with other likeminded nations, and ensure our entitlement system doesn’t drown us? How will we make sure that the voice of freedom and rights does not become merely one among many, but instead continues to be held out as an ideal applicable to all peoples. That’s my question to you, and I feel that I, and the rest of the nation, and the rest of the world, deserve an answer as soon as possible.

Cheers, DER