Consult an Ex-Terrorist

Export Security, Not Democracy
by Jonathan Rauch
Published in the National Journal 

"Six years after September 11," wrote Krauthammer, "there is still no remotely plausible alternative to the Bush Doctrine for ultimately changing the culture from which jihadism arises."

If that ever was true, it ceased to be as of last summer. That was when Amitai Etzioni published an important book called Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. A professor of international relations at George Washington University, Etzioni argues that the United States should export security, not democracy.

If you want to discuss foreign policy in the age of terrorism, try consulting an ex-terrorist. As a teenager in the 1940s, Etzioni was a fighter in the Palmach, a Jewish insurgent group that tried to bomb the British out of what was then Palestine. The group aimed at infrastructure, not people, but Etzioni says the experience gave him a lifelong appreciation of the awfulness of war and the centrality of security.

Today, pondering the presidential race, Etzioni sees ample criticism of Bush, but nothing resembling an overarching alternative to the Bush Doctrine. American foreign policy needs a positive vision with a moral basis. But exporting democracy, Etzioni says, isn't it.

Why not? First, the Bush Doctrine suffers from Multiple Realism Deficiency Disorder. Democracy grows gradually from within, by stages, and cannot be imposed from without. The Bush Doctrine thus promises what it can't deliver. In any case, Washington often has little practical choice but to cooperate with friendly authoritarian regimes, such as those in Egypt and Saudi Arabia; we can't expect cooperation from regimes we're working to overthrow.

All of that you have heard before. Etzioni's signature contribution is an intriguing second argument. Putting democratization at the center of U.S. foreign policy, he says, is counterproductive. It turns against America millions of the very people it needs to win over: illiberal moderates.

The Muslim world is full of people who aver support for democracy. But comparatively few mean liberal, secular democracy, which is what Americans mean. Instead, they mean a combination of democracy and theocracy that Americans would not recognize as liberal-democratic at all. For example, they tell pollsters they want democracy while also saying their governments should be more Islamic.

These people reject American-style social liberalization, such as equality for women, which Americans regard as a democratic linchpin. On the other hand, the great majority of them abhor violence. Thus, writes Etzioni, "major segments of the Muslim world are neither pro-liberal-democracy nor pro-violence."

These "illiberal moderates," he argues, are "a kind of global 'swing vote,' " far outnumbering both illiberal extremists (who support violence) and liberal moderates (who support Westernization). A democratization agenda that implies American-style liberalization strikes illiberal moderates as a threat to their religion, not a promise of freedom. No wonder the Bush Doctrine offends them in droves.

But most of them will gladly support an American foreign policy in which basic security heads the agenda. Note the word "basic." To provide basic security, in Etzioni's framework, a government need not have a spotless human-rights record, independent courts, or even elections. It must merely protect its own people from genocide and ethnic cleansing, and refrain from invading other countries, supporting international terrorism, and posing a nuclear threat. If a regime provides that much internal and external security, the United States should promise not to overthrow it -- even if it is unsavory or unfriendly in other respects.

Of course, the United States will still care about, and advocate, democratization and other core values. But top priority should go to basic security, on which everything else depends.

Realists insist that stability is the precondition for democracy; neocons, that democracy is the precondition for stability. Etzioni is saying that basic security is the precondition for both, a lesson stingingly learned in Iraq. "In Iraq our problem was that we did not focus on security," he says. "We focused on trying to build another America."

The template for Security First is Washington's handshake with Libya, a nasty regime that gave up weapons of mass destruction and terrorism and, in Etzioni's view, should have been more promptly rewarded for doing so. If Iran and North Korea were to follow Libya's example, they should get the same deal.

Shaking hands with the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il for doing what any civilized regime should do is distasteful; but remember, exchanging peace for security is the beginning, not the end. Over time, governments that provide their people and the world with basic security furnish the soil in which civil society and, ultimately, democracy can take root.

Making security the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy sounds pretty minimalist. But, Etzioni argues, it is both more practical than trying to democratize the world and more moral than hard-bitten realism. After all, Security First rests on the deepest and most universal of moral foundations, respect for human life and repudiation of deadly violence. It would authorize, indeed require, international humanitarian intervention against genocide, which the United States would help organize but not necessarily lead.

Is "Provide basic security!" an idealistic enough mission for an America that likes to think of itself as a light unto nations? "Talk about peace instead of security and we're there," Etzioni replies. Dwight Eisenhower got terrific mileage, at home and abroad, by dedicating America to peace, which he promised to uphold in the face of the Communist threat.

Does Security First resolve all of the dilemmas that authoritarian governments and humanitarian crises pose? Hardly. The United States would still have problems dealing with a non-nuclear North Korea or a nonterroristic Iran. It would still need to walk a tightrope in dealing with friendly governments that torture (like Egypt) or provoke their neighbors (like Pakistan).

What Security First has going for it, however, is its congruity with so much of what U.S. foreign policy winds up doing anyway. Whatever the heady rhetoric of John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or George W. Bush, for the most part Washington tolerates ugly regimes that provide basic security. It relies on Disney and consumer goods and the passage of time to do the rest.

Security First is realism with a caring face, idealism in sensible shoes. Maybe you need to be an ex-terrorist to think of it.

CHOICE Review
by D. P. Franklin
Published in CHOICE

This book is well written, well organized, and a must read for decision makers and students of American foreign policy, although perhaps it should more properly be titled “First Things First.”  In laying out a case for a fact-based foreign policy, Etzioni (George Washington Univ.), a founder of the communitarian movement, delivers an indirect for devastating attack on the policies of the Bush administration.  The author argues that Americans must set the stage for building democracy by emphasizing in foreign policy what he calls the “primacy of life” as an essential prerequisite for civilized society.  Beyond making a case for the establishment of security within troubled states, Etzioni also outlines a realistic, constitutionally practical, and affordable program to prevent terrorism, relying again on the principles of “first things first.” He argues that the most dangerous threat by far to the US is nuclear attack, especially from a terrorist group or a failing state.  By this standard the most crucial focus of US national security should be Russia.  It makes sense then that instead of trying to build democracy in Iraq, the US should focus first on efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation and the eventual end of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons.  Summing up: Essential.  General Readers, upper division undergraduates through practitioners.

Comments

[generic viagra]

A sensible approach to terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction
No security measures can not completely eliminate the activities of Arab terrorists. This is evident in Israel: a tiny country whose population is very concerned about security, can not prevent every terrorist attack. Enhanced security measures at airports, only transferred the attention of Arab terrorists on the other weaknesses, such as night clubs and bus. When was closed border with Gaza, Arab terrorists penetrated the West Bank. Arab terrorists, as tax evaders, always find ways to deceive the society. The attack is always one step ahead of protection, which only reacts. The only good protection - proactive, preventive: Attack of the Arab terrorists before they attack you.

[lots in costa rica]

I think this blog is pretty cool,it has a lot of good and interesting content aboutExport Security, Not Democracy,good for you I hope you can add more useful information and upgrade your site,I really like it