Kevin Xu

KX,



We interviewed Condi Rice on Friday for Weekend Edition Saturday, the transcript of which can be found here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91761019
At one point she says, "You know, elections don't start on Election Day. They start in the run-up: Can people campaign? Are activists and opponents of the regime free from intimidations?" which basically means she's thrown up her hands and declared this year's election a lost cause. And this was even before Tsvangirai dropped out.



And there is one big question on my mind (and presumably the mind of my fellow readers): though we all want to support democracy, freedom, and humanitarianism around the world, how should we allocate our resources to achieve this goal with any degree of success? We're tied up in Iraq. and Afghanistan. Then there's Burma. Then there's Zimbabwe. Then there's this article in Slate about Equatorial Guinea: http://www.slate.com/id/2193870/pagenum/all/#page_start



How would you choose?



VC

Dear VC,

In response: why should we choose to champion one over the other when the necessity for partners in our foreign relations remains a great, albeit inconvenient truth?

The United States cannot act alone in a system that claims to be built upon universal principles. Pooled resources, coordinated strategies, and shared responsibility are surely the most desired course of action. If our allies stepped up to join a humbler, less reactionary U.S.---could we collectively evade the choice to which you point?

KT

You speak of U.S. interventionism as if the world wants it. That's not the attitude I've encountered at all. When I was at Sciences Po, one of my professors took the class out to dinner. As usual, I found myself trying to defend historical U.S. foreign policy (if not that of the Bush administration) against attacks from students of various nationalities. I made the mistake of using Darfur as an example of how the U.S. might apply its power to make positive change. But the response was not what I anticipated. Everyone at the table was not appalled--as I was--that the U.S. had done too little in Darfur. Rather, they were angry that I suggested the U.S. should become involved in a part of the world that--they said--the U.S. had no place in.

Of course, much of this reaction can be attributed to the disaster of Iraq. The world community has become disillusioned with the prospect of intervention for the sake of democracy building because Iraq has not gone as planned. In this respect, the Bush administration can be faulted for lessening the international appetite for humanitarian intervention.

The fault also lies, however, with the Left. Many leftists have overreacted in their opposition to the Iraq war, branding any intervention by the United States as just another example of American overreach. This is stupid and harmful. Of course the U.S. should use its power and influence to promote human rights and democratic transition. Otherwise we would just be another realist superpower acting in its our interest. And that`s not how we`ve conducted our foreign policy, at least since 1945.

So the situation is basically one in which no one wants the U.S. to intervene, but it must. Speicific to Zimbabwe, I agree that America should have acted more forcibly in supporting the democratic election there. But let`s not kid ourselves. American intervention there would not have brought "benefit...to the U.S. image around the world." It likely would have met with the same reaction as did similar humanitarian intervention in Somalia and Beirut. That is, the world would complain of American imperialism. Indeed, had the U.S. intervened in Rwanda in the 1990s, it almost certainly would have been accused of the same.

In sum, the world will hate America if we do and hate us if we don`t. No succesful humanitarian intervention will change this, because it has not in the past. Our foreign policy must therefore be based solely on what we think is right, and not subject to a popularity contest.

Dear all,

Thank you for your comments and questions. I'm glad my interventionist platform sparked some strong reaction. In an effort to weave all raised questions into one coherent response, I think one important public opinion that we often overlook when assessing the viability and popularity of U.S. foreign policy is the people who needs our help the most. Major European countries and prominent developing countries will always to wary of U.S. intervention of all forms and fashions in defense of, I would speculate, their own national interest and international standing. But have we ever asked if the Zimbabweans who are being killed and raped by Mugabe's goons or the Tutsi who were being slaughtered by their Hutu neighbors wanted other countries' help to keep them safe, so people have the security and stability to solve their conflicts in a civil manner? I bet the victims of the Rwandan genocide wanted help. I bet the families of political activists in Zimbabwe wanted help. And frankly, few organization or political entity can respond with the necessary alacrity and strength except for the United States. The UN and, in the case of Africa, the AU are notoriously slow to respond to humanitarian crisis; the only country that can be counted on to take on this obligation and leadership is the United States.

Iraq, for all its failures and miseries, is not comparable to the Zimbabwe or Rwanda case. We did not invade Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons and we waged war on a country that has a stable and running government, albeit its atrocious human rights record. Zimbabwe on the other hand does not have a running government, the whole country is in chaos, and the only reason why anyone would interview would be for humanitarian reasons. I disagree with the most recent comment in that I strong believe intervening in Zimbabwe would restore much of America's credibility and image around the world because it would have been done only and pure because it was the right thing to do. There is no oil involved, no terrorism involved and certainly no personal history between our leader and its leader (everything that Iraq is not). The biggest reason why American intervention has met so much opposition around the world is because we rarely intervened simply because it was the RIGHT thing to do and that hurts our credibility. I would argue that our intervention in the first Gulf War and Kosovo displayed a good degree of moral and value commitment that has really strengthened the U.S. image and standing. All of that evaporated because of the Iraq War and the best way to regain that standing is NOT to stay at home but to continue a value-based and principle-based foreign policy that intervenes for the right reason, not the most profitable or politically convenient reason. In the long run and even in the short run, smart intervention will bring restore our reputation and thus serve our national interests and allow us to carry out policies more effectively around the world.

We shouldn't choose which country needs our help more over others, but we do need to evaluate the opportunity very carefully. In my opinion, U.S. intervention is critical when a humanitarian crisis is at hand when large number of people are dying precipitously due to gross human rights violation. Darfur is a crisis, Rwanada was a crisis, Zimbabwe is crisis, Iraq was not a crisis, and neither is Saudia Arabia or Pakistan or China. We need to deal with the non-crisis countries with a strong set of diplomatic tools, but we must be prepared to intervene swiftly with crisis countries.