Has the Obama administration lost sight of the moral dimension of foreign policy? Have democratic values been set aside in over-reacting to what some perceive as the tainted legacy of the Bush administration’s Freedom Agenda?
Human rights and democracy advocates have criticized perceived policy shifts on human rights in China, Iran’s Green opposition movement and democracy support in the Middle East. But now an influential voice from within the Democratic Party is expressing concern that the administration is betraying the party’s legacy:
The point is not that the new administration has made a practical calculation in some of these tough calls. The problem is that it’s done so in all of them. There was a time when presidents gained political strength from upholding democratic values. But it’s now seen as smart politics to be a “realist.” And that is the real tragedy. In this way, some Democrats are allowing the failures of George W. Bush to tarnish what used to be one of the party’s foreign-policy strengths.
James P. Rubin, assistant Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration, worries that “somehow being called a Nixonian realist is a compliment in Democrat-dominated Washington these days.”
The administration insists that it is reframing not downgrading democracy’s place in foreign policy, but Rubin argues that a pragmatic foreign policy need not entail jettisoning democratic considerations. Previous administrations demonstrated that a twin-track approach – addressing democracy and human rights without compromising security and other foreign policy imperatives – is feasible.
“Our support for democratic values, long associated with the Democratic Party, must not be thrown overboard,” he insists. “During the Cold War, we had no problem conducting arms-control negotiations with Moscow while also using the Helsinki process to advocate for dissidents and their freedoms.”
I would agree that, on the surface level, the Obama Administration’s apparent backing away from democratic values would appear to be a move toward Nixonian realism. There’s cause to believe however, that a more substantial push for market-oriented solutions to poverty will come to the surface as this State Department has at its disposal people such as Anne-Marie Slaughter. As market-oriented solutions to poverty grow in their impact, democratic governance comes about as public officials see the long-term benefits of a market economy as tied to their current performance as a democracy. In Slaughter’s words, “Those same conditions that allow for the creativity and entrepreneurship which make markets work are also the same mechanisms that build a vibrant civil society and the mechanisms of accountability which make democratic institutions work.” (http://www.cipe.org/featureservice/?p=362)
[...] Allen at Democracy Digest has [...]