Freedumb
Bush's concept of freedom is
rigidly one-dimensional
October 15, 2004
iranian.com
A "free" Iraq. A "free" Afghanistan. Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!
If there is a Holy Grail of President Bush's foreign policy, it is surely
the concept of freedom. As was evident in the first 2004 presidential debate
on September 30th, the President seems obsessed with the idea that America can
and should make people "free." Bush's conception of freedom,
however, is extremely simplistic and narrow-minded in many respects, and has
seriously damaged America's credibility and standing in the world.
The fundamental problem with Bush's notion of freedom is
that he never actually defines the term. In reality, freedom has
many definitions, and means distinctly different things to different
people. At its most basic level, freedom usually means the ability
to control one's life and destiny. In practical terms, this
means both the freedom to do certain things -- such as speak one's
mind -- and the freedom from certain dangers, such as violence
and economic ruin.
Bush's conception of freedom, however, is
rigidly one-dimensional. To the White House, freedom is defined
solely in a narrow political sense. Bush believes that if a nation
such as Iraq or Afghanistan has what Americans consider a "democracy," in
which citizens vote to elect their leaders, "freedom" is
achieved. There are so many problems with this view that one does
not know where to begin.
In the first place, Bush's conception of political freedom
is much too narrow. He fails to consider that most non-Americans
have the same feelings of patriotism toward their nations and cultures
that Americans have. He doesn't realize that citizens of
a nation may feel "freer" under a non-democratic government
created by their own countrymen than under a democratic government
forcibly imposed by a foreign power.
It is true that the first
government will be less democratic for individuals. It will also,
however, be seen by most of its citizens as a greater expression
of their nation controlling its own destiny than a "democracy" created
at the barrel of a gun by an invader will.
This was one of the mistakes American leaders made in Vietnam.
They believed that most of the people of South Vietnam would prefer
to live under the South Vietnamese government, which was ostensibly
democratic (although in practice, it often amounted to a dictatorship)
than under Ho Chi Minh's North Vietnamese government, which
was communist. They failed to consider, however, that Ho also represented
nationalism.
The central motif of Vietnam's history has been
resistance to foreign invaders. To most Vietnamese, Ho was the
ultimate symbol of the Vietnamese people taking charge of their
own destiny. South Vietnam was seen, with a great deal of truth,
as a virtual creation of the United States. The sense of national
pride and collective freedom Ho represented far outweighed any
increased political rights South Vietnamese might (or might not)
have enjoyed under the South Vietnamese government.
When people analyze a situation in a foreign country, their judgments
are usually severely clouded by there stereotypes they hold about
that country and people. One of the best ways around this is to
use analogies which force people to abandon their stereotypes.
Imagine Americans in a similar position as Iraqis and Vietnamese.
Imagine that after winning the American Revolutionary War, George
Washington declared himself king of the United States. Instead
of a democracy, America became a monarchy. Americans did not choose
their leaders. Instead, the "crown" of the U.S. was passed
from one generation of the Washington family to another.
Imagine
that today, while most other Western nations have become democracies,
America remains a hereditary monarchy. Although many Americans
have began grumbling about this, the House of Washington remains
in firm control of the country.
Suppose that France, rather that the United States, is the world's
only superpower. French President Jacques Chirac argues that America's
King Michael III has continued to develop "weapons of mass
destruction" even after a decade of U.N. resolutions forbidding
him to do so, and that Michael III therefore poses a threat to
the national security of France. Chirac argues his case before
the United Nations. Most of the world finds Chirac's evidence
completely unconvincing. Chirac says that if the U.N. won't
unite behind him, he will use force himself.
Chirac orders an invasion of the United States. In a brilliant
twenty day campaign, French forces race from the Atlantic to the
Pacific coast to Alaska and Hawaii. Michael III is overthrown.
Over the course of a year, French troops and police search the
length and breadth of America for WMDs, from the Grand Canyon to
the Florida Everglades. No weapons of mass destruction, however,
are ever found. Meanwhile, France creates a democratic government
for the U.S. An American president is elected.
Although he is roundly denounced for his unjustified invasion
of the U.S., Chirac argues that even though no WMDs were found,
a "free America" will be better for Americans and the
world. Most Americans, however, do not feel this way. Even those
who had wanted the U.S. to be a democracy are outraged at France.
French flags are burned in New York and Los Angeles every day,
and there is even talk of destroying the Statue of Liberty because
it was given to America by France. Americans felt far more free
under a monarchy created by Americans than they do under a "democracy" created
by the French.
This scenario is fictitious. It is clear, however, that Americans
would have major problems with "freedom" delivered by
uninvited foreigners. Why shouldn't Iraqis feel similarly?
Bush not only defines political freedom too simplistically, he
completely ignores the fact that to most people, freedom includes
physical and economic security as well as political rights. Bush
constantly claims that the war in Iraq is a critical element of
the "war on terror." He seems oblivious, however, to
the fact that the war has brought terrorism to Iraq itself on a
scale the country has never known before.
In important ways, most
Iraqis are arguably less free today then they were under Saddam
Hussein. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed "Four Freedoms" that
all people and nations are entitled to. One of these was freedom
from fear. Saddam was a dictator, but his violence was controlled.
The violence which is occurring in Iraq today is far more scary
for many Iraqis than that perpetrated by Saddam.
When Saddam was
in power, people who were suspected of disloyalty to the regime
were seized and executed. The Kurds and Shiites, the dominant groups
of northern and southern Iraq respectively, were sometimes the
collective target of Saddam's merciless wrath. Most Iraqis
did not, however, have to live in daily fear of being blown to
bits as they walk the streets. Bush constantly speaks of bestowing "freedom" on
others without even attempting to place himself in the shoes of
those supposedly receiving it.
U.S. officials often site Germany and Japan as successful examples
of creating democratic governments in other nations. But there
are critical differences between these nations and Iraq. The Allies
were left in control of Germany and Japan as a result of aggression
by those nations in World War II. The creation of new political
systems was part of reconstruction programs for these countries.
In the case of Iraq, it was the Americans who were the initial
invaders. Although Bush likes to believe American troops were seen
as "liberators," this is not how most Iraqis saw it.
 In addition to ignoring the moral, emotional, and philosophical
problems with his conception of freedom, Bush also neglects to
consider the formidable logistical difficulties which stand in
the way of his vision of the U.S. spreading liberty to other nations.
It is obvious that unless Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other nation
is going to become an American colony, U.S. troops cannot remain
in these places indefinitely.
Bush ignores the fact that unless
a government is willing to use brute force, as was Saddam, it
is only as strong as the support it enjoys among its people. The
existence of stable armies and police forces is absolutely essential
in
order for political freedom to be secure. These institutions are
not
robot-like entities. They are composed of individuals who have
feelings and needs like everyone else. They need money to eat
and support their families. Their members have their own feelings
regarding
their country, and the rest of the world.
If soldiers and police
are not able to put food on their families' tables, or believe
the government they are protecting is illegitimate, then law
and order can collapse like a house leveled by an earthquake.
Bush seems to take it for granted that the civil mechanisms necessary
for freedom will work fine. In Iraq, law and order is an absolute
dream at the present time. Even in Afghanistan, where a presidential
election was recently held, continued stability is far from
assured.
Much of the country remains under the effective control of
warlords.
Bush's obsession with what he considers "freedom," and
the many problems with his approach to the issue, brings to mind
the movie Air Force One, Wolfgang Petersen's 1997 action
thriller. In this film, the American president (played by Harrison
Ford) is flying home from a summit with the president of Russia.
Suddenly, a group of ultra-nationalistic Russians hijack Air
Force One, demanding the release of a Russian general who is in prison.
At one point in the film, the chief hijacker, Ivan Korshunov
(played by Gary Oldman) angrily says to the president: "You have no
idea what freedom means!" Korshunov goes on to say that his
nation has been victimized by "gangsters and prostitutes." To
this man, freedom clearly signifies something different than it
does to the American president.  Freedom is a wonderful idea, and
one of the most powerful concepts in human history. In order for
freedom to be real, however, it must be meaningful to the people
it is supposed to apply to. President Bush's approach to
freedom is narrow-minded and one-sided, while completely ignoring
the feelings of those he claims to be "liberating." Bush's
approach has only served to increase hatred for the United States
around the world, while doing more to weaken America's security
than to strengthen it.
Author
Lee Howard Hodges, B.A. M.A. Historical Studies,
University of Maryland, Baltimore.
*
*
|
