Democracy Watch: China, Hong Kong, Liberia, Syria and Mexico
In case you were wondering the Reds have issued a report that declares the Communist Party to be "the most important and fundamental principle for developing socialist political democracy in China." I would not expect changes there soon. Just in case you are fuzzy on that we finally got to see what big changes Lord Tsang has in mind for Hong Kong. I'm not even going to get into it because it is just tinkering around the edges. Democracy advocates in Hong Kong are ticked off and are planning to protest. If they stick together they could block passage of the reforms. It will be interesting to see if they actually pull this off. Surprisingly the NYT piece, the same one that says that the government is seeking "somewhat greater democracy," gets a quote from Martin Lee while the WaPost opted not to. In Liberia their version of the Iron Lady is in the runoff against a popular soccer star with little formal education...ain't third world politics grand? Syrian opposition groups, apparently they do in fact exist, took advantage of the potentially damaging UN report of the assasination of Rafik Hariri to issue a call for democracy in the form of a statement that has been labeled the Damascus Declaration. Meanwhile my longshot pick for pres of Mexico recieved an unexpected boost from the OAS. Despite the opportunity to run for President with the support of a political party, Jorge Castaneda has wanted to run as an independent all along. Unfortunately Mexican electoral law only permits party sponsored candidates. The OAS's Commission on Human Rights has sent a letter to Mexico's electoral commission (in Spanish) in support of Castaneda's effort to run and the commission has promised to respond.
posted by theCardinal @ 5:34 AM
5 Comments:
Every government has its own ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of its version of democracy. Should the UN insist on a standard version of representation everywhere?
Anyway, one part of the UN system - the International Monetary Fund - might oppose insistence on universal democracy. In a paper last month on reform of the IMF, the Director of the Institute for International Economics reasonably suggested that the IMF's duty to manage the global economy might be compromised; this would be if countries who are key players in the global economy were prevented from inputting to the rules because they were not democracies - examples given were Saudi Arabia (#1 oil exporter) and China (key economy). Both countries are members of the G20 - in fact China is the chair for 2005.
I am squarely in the Fareed Zakaria school once it comes to democracy. I believe that there are a set of social and economic factors that help determine if a state has reached the maturity to have a functioning democracy. I don't doubt that a less than representative government can implement reforms better than one that answers to the people. The problem of course is that a less than representative government can also expoit its powers more.
Obviously every democracy is going to have its nuances, but there is no nuance in China's plans. They seek to thwart HK's democratic aspirations at every turn.
Thanks for the reference to Fareed Zakaria. I saw mention of him a couple of months ago on the blog, and a link to one of his books: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad
It was interesting to compare Zakaria's view of democracy with that of a former senior government employee.
Book review: "Zakaria contends that something has also gone wrong with democracy in America, which has descended into "a simple-minded populism that values popularity and openness." The solution, Zakaria says, is more appointed bodies, like the World Trade Organization and the U.S. Supreme Court, which are effective precisely because they are insulated from political pressures."
Chief of staff of former US secretary of state Colin Powell: "So we need a system of checks and balances and institutional fabric that can withstand anybody, or at least nearly so."
You might be interested in a post today by strategist Thomas Barnett. National democracy is reckoned to be dangerous - it is biased towards economic benefits, even if this means war [no checks and balances]. The US is used as the example for nations everywhere:
Interesting profile in WSJ on the struggle between the "realists" in the China Congressional Caucus, led by China hawks, and the Norman Angell types ("Great Illusion," 1910 and Nobel Peace Prize 1933) who believe peace comes through trade (U.S.-China Study Group). Both are House groups. Rummy favors the hawks, and John Snow favors the traders.
But the real "realism" unites the two sides far more than the hawks would care to admit. The Caucus is chock full of House Armed Services Committee types whose districts are chock full of defense contractors threatened by our growing economic alliance with China (can't wage war if we get too tight), and their economic self-interest differs not one whit from the traders whose districts are commensurately benefiting from China's economic rise. The leader of the Caucus (Randy Forbes) naturally hails from the Navy's major shipbuilding center, located in Virginia. Guess what his answer to China's rise is? Lots and lots of naval ships built in his district. The bigger and more high tech the better, and if they have no real use in the GWOT and don't do a damn thing to keep Americans alive on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other places we'll wage war in the future, well that's just too damn bad. The man's got jobs to protect in his district, our soldiers' lives are somebody else's business.
But of course, I say something like that and certainly I'm "soft on defense." I'm "naïve" because I believe wars are to be waged in the Gap instead of the Taiwan Straits.
Yes, yes, I've got nothing on these "realists."
This is trade winners and losers, plain and simple. The hawks just dress their version up as "national security" when it's really all about the all-mighty buck in the end.
Both sides want to profit from China's rise. It's your job as voters to decide which route makes more sense for America in the long run: public-sector defense spending and arms trafficking (.e., we sell abroad what we can't use here in the Pentagon) versus moving our economy on to new levels of high technology that keep us competitive versus the rising manufacturing powerhouse that is China, and finally investing in the SysAdmin force that will create lasting victories in the GWOT instead of simply waging driveby regime change.
But don't kid yourself. Money makes the world go around, especially in Congress. This is not a serious discussion of national security, which in Asia would focus on Taiwan and North Korea. This is all about who makes the most money off China's rise. One side is honest about their greed, the other is not.
And don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with greed. I prefer it to racism and nationalism and hatred any day of the week.
I just like mine unvarnished, minus the hypocrisy and the flag-waving dress-up by national security "experts" who are simply in-House lobbyists for defense contractors.
It seems Bacevich agrees with the need for checks and balances.
Post a Comment
<< Home