[Mb-civic] When terrorists go mainstream - Monica Duffy Toft -
Boston Globe Op-Ed
William Swiggard
swiggard at comcast.net
Fri Jan 27 04:34:49 PST 2006
When terrorists go mainstream
By Monica Duffy Toft | January 27, 2006 | The Boston Globe
PERHAPS THE biggest surprise about this week's election results, in
which the terrorist group Hamas won a majority of seats in the
Palestinian parliament, is that it was a surprise to us at all. There
are two main reasons why.
First, many in this country have fallen victim to the notion that if
today's rogue states are bad neighbors, democratization will make them
good neighbors. A central pillar of the current Bush administration's
foreign policy is that dictators make bad neighbors. In other words, we
can expect authoritarian governments to start wars and support terrorism
more readily than democratic governments.
When the current US administration first took office, the security
concern of the day was ''rogue states," a euphemism for Afghanistan,
North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. After Sept. 11, the threat of rogue states
morphed into the terrorist threat, along with the conviction that
because these states were led by dictators, they would be more
susceptible to terrorism and they would eventually have ''to be dealt with."
But apt as the characterization of these states might have been, and as
troubling as they were to their respective neighbors, the corollary does
not follow. It is not the case that democratic states necessarily make
good neighbors on account of their form of government alone.
Japan is a democracy, but China does not rest easy on that account, even
though Japan has no formal military to speak of, and even though
pacifism is a part of its constitution. Democracies, even traditional
allies, often don't see eye to eye; and historically they are as likely
to start wars as dictatorships.
Second, most Americans buy into the romantic notion that ''there are no
bad people, only bad leaders." By extension, giving power to the people
must result in ''good" policy. The trouble is, what is ''good" depends
on where you sit. If you live among the minority of states that are rich
and getting richer, then war and violence are a bad idea: There is
little to gain and everything to lose. If, however, you live among the
majority of states that are poor and getting poorer, then war and
violence seem a good idea: There is everything to gain and nothing to
lose. Thus, as in Woodrow Wilson's day, exporting democracy is as useful
for gaining domestic political support as it is destructive as foreign
policy.
Logic notwithstanding, we have a real-world example of what happens when
the people of a poor Islamic state are offered democracy. In the early
1990s, Algeria's government held democratic elections to head off
widespread dissent and riots. The Islamic Salvation Front -- the first
legal Islamic political party in North Africa -- worked hard to win.
When the Algerian people were given a choice (twice), they chose the
theocracy (twice), and the government of Algeria was toppled by a
military coup that repudiated the election results and imposed martial law.
What can we learn from this?
First, the United States and its allies have the power to bring their
own foreign policies in line with their professed democratic values. It
may be difficult, but the United States must stop supporting military
dictatorships simply because they are ''allies in the war against
terror." The United States must also support Israel by pressuring it to
concede to a genuine Palestinian state, while at the same time
guaranteeing Israel's security.
Second, the more democratic Palestinians and Iraqis become, the less
likely they are to support US strategic and economic interests. Israel
is a strategic interest for the United States; but it is unlikely that
given a choice, most people in the Middle East would accept Israel's
right to exist. In other words, ideal election outcomes may not result
in ideal foreign policy outcomes, from a US perspective.
Countering the popular appeal of groups such as Hamas requires
controlling habitat, not population. Killing terrorists can't stop the
violence until and unless you destroy the habitat that produces them.
That in turn demands serious effort at providing basic needs, such as
food, shelter, clean water, education, and healthcare.
Hamas has historically done much better at providing for the basic needs
of Palestinian Arabs than the Palestinian Authority (Fatah). That's why
Hamas won, and that's why, when seeking to export democracy, the United
States and its allies must remain careful of what they wish for.
Monica Duffy Toft is an associate professor at the Kennedy School of
Government and assistant director of the John M. Olin Institute of
Strategic Studies at Harvard University.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/01/27/when_terrorists_go_mainstream/
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list