Thursday, January 20, 2005
Bush's Inauguration
Bush wants to spread freedom around the world. Hey, that's a laudable goal, but there's only so much you can do by force of arms.
Taiwan, South Korea and Chile were all military dictatorships (in Chile's case, partly with the support of the Reagan administration). What typified them, however, was an emphasis on open markets, and enabling their own people to start businesses, own property, and do the things that turn nations into healthy and wealthy places. In so doing, these totalitarian governments planted the seeds of their own destruction, as a population accustomed to managing their own economic affairs quickly grows tired of the inability to manage their political affairs. Regimes resisted, but the minority can't long resist the will of the majority, and these nations became democracies.
The same WILL happen to China, and I think that many in the Communist party well understand that. It's better to live in a rich country than be king of the starving masses (just ask Kim Jong Il of North Korea, what a lonely existence he must lead).
In other words, I think what Bush should concentrate on FIRST is to work hard at getting the Doha round back on track. Liberalizing trade in farm products is essential to the development of billions of citizens of poor nations who don't have the infrastructure to produce anything besides farm products. This will raise their standard of living and make them better able to afford the kinds of things (education, health care, etc.) that make them capable of handling democratic government.
In other words, an emphasis on democracy comes second to an emphasis on enabling people in poorer nations the freedom to better themselves economically. People who better themselves economically are more likely to effect regime change themselves.
Of course, some regimes you don't want to leave free to better themselves, particularly when that regime is led by someone who has invaded two of his neighbors and threatened a third (Saddam Hussein and Iraq). Most nations aren't led by dictators of the Saddam Hussein mould. Just as most people are Jeffrey Dahmer's, most people prefer that good things happen to their fellow man. As Sting pointed out in the 80s, the Russians loved their children just as much as the average Westerner. Though power is seductive, few people would prefer to enslave and impoverish their neighbors for it.
In the short term, though, sometimes it's better to encourage a leader with an iron hand and a view of a successful economic future for his fellow citizens. Pinochet was a bad man, but Chile is not likely to fall to a dictator any time in the future, because he created an environment wherein Chile prospered economically. Rich people don't put up with dictators for long.
So, Bush, make the world a freer place, but don't be lulled into the belief that you can beat people into embracing freedom by force of arms. There's a time and place for military action. In most cases, however, simply TRADING (and encouraging free market principles) is enough.
Bush wants to spread freedom around the world. Hey, that's a laudable goal, but there's only so much you can do by force of arms.
Taiwan, South Korea and Chile were all military dictatorships (in Chile's case, partly with the support of the Reagan administration). What typified them, however, was an emphasis on open markets, and enabling their own people to start businesses, own property, and do the things that turn nations into healthy and wealthy places. In so doing, these totalitarian governments planted the seeds of their own destruction, as a population accustomed to managing their own economic affairs quickly grows tired of the inability to manage their political affairs. Regimes resisted, but the minority can't long resist the will of the majority, and these nations became democracies.
The same WILL happen to China, and I think that many in the Communist party well understand that. It's better to live in a rich country than be king of the starving masses (just ask Kim Jong Il of North Korea, what a lonely existence he must lead).
In other words, I think what Bush should concentrate on FIRST is to work hard at getting the Doha round back on track. Liberalizing trade in farm products is essential to the development of billions of citizens of poor nations who don't have the infrastructure to produce anything besides farm products. This will raise their standard of living and make them better able to afford the kinds of things (education, health care, etc.) that make them capable of handling democratic government.
In other words, an emphasis on democracy comes second to an emphasis on enabling people in poorer nations the freedom to better themselves economically. People who better themselves economically are more likely to effect regime change themselves.
Of course, some regimes you don't want to leave free to better themselves, particularly when that regime is led by someone who has invaded two of his neighbors and threatened a third (Saddam Hussein and Iraq). Most nations aren't led by dictators of the Saddam Hussein mould. Just as most people are Jeffrey Dahmer's, most people prefer that good things happen to their fellow man. As Sting pointed out in the 80s, the Russians loved their children just as much as the average Westerner. Though power is seductive, few people would prefer to enslave and impoverish their neighbors for it.
In the short term, though, sometimes it's better to encourage a leader with an iron hand and a view of a successful economic future for his fellow citizens. Pinochet was a bad man, but Chile is not likely to fall to a dictator any time in the future, because he created an environment wherein Chile prospered economically. Rich people don't put up with dictators for long.
So, Bush, make the world a freer place, but don't be lulled into the belief that you can beat people into embracing freedom by force of arms. There's a time and place for military action. In most cases, however, simply TRADING (and encouraging free market principles) is enough.
