We can all argue about what it means to be a progressive. I believe the president is a progressive in the areas that I care about most. Foreign policy would be at the top of that list. He isn’t trying to overturn the apple cart, and I have many criticisms of both his foreign policy and the way he has been waging the so-called “War on Terror.” So, this isn’t some seal of approval for everything that is going on. But a progressive take on foreign policy, for me, begins with a recognition that our foreign policy has historically been marred by a willingness…in some cases, an eagerness…to put our country’s business interests ahead of our moral interests. For most of the Cold War, we’d take a business-friendly autocrat over a populist elected leader any day of the week. Only in Europe did we seem to remain largely true to our rhetoric when it came to supporting human rights (including the right to have a say in how you are governed). In South America, our conduct has been shameful. In Africa, it has been cynical. In Southeast Asia it was criminal. In the Middle East it has been more tinged with legitimate national security (military/energy) concerns, but has also been most nearly the opposite of what we purport to stand for.
A progressive foreign policy doesn’t ignore our military requirements (although it would reduce them), nor does it automatically eschew relationships with unsavory foreign governments. But it stands for human rights and seeks to keep unsavory foreign governments at arm’s length, not dependent on our ongoing support. A progressive foreign policy seeks to lead more through soft power and a positive example than through coercion and brute force. Most of all, a progressive foreign policy is cognizant of the way most of the world views not only our current policies, but our history since the end of World War Two. And such a policy doesn’t want to perpetuate bad narratives. That’s why Obama’s take on Libya is an essentially progressive vision.
Despite Mr. Obama’s statement, interviews with military officials and other administration officials describe a number of risks, some tactical and others political, to American intervention in Libya.
Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.
“He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,” the senior official said, quoting the president.
There is a limit to how much we should worry about perceptions. Whether we meddle in Libya or not, we will surely continue to meddle elsewhere in the Middle East (see Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia). But it’s important that the president understands the problem with meddling. So many in Washington DC do not see any problem whatsoever. Sen. John Kerry is very casual when he talks about cratering Libya’s airfields. That’s an act of war that he is flippantly advocating. When you commit acts of war against foreign countries and cultures you have to expect some blowback. I don’t normally quote Rasmessen polls because I find them disreputable, but they can probably be believed when they say that 63% of Americans oppose intervention in Libya.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should get more directly involved in the Libyan crisis. Sixty-three percent (63%) say America should leave the situation alone. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.
Maybe the American people simply don’t want to take on the risk of blowback? Why would we? What’s in it for us? Libya is not one of our allies. We don’t buy much energy from them. We’ve lived with Gaddafi for decades and haven’t had a problem with him in the last twenty-four years. The situation could easily devolve into a Civil War. And, as John Carney notes, our No-Fly Zone in Iraq lasted twelve years and led us to invade, in part, to end the impasse. Why do we want that kind of headache?
John Kerry is at least looking to protect innocent civilians, and he’s only calling for us to be prepared to intervene. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, continue to demonstrate his lack of imagination.
Mr. Lieberman and others argue that the risks of waiting may be far greater than the risk of an early, decisive military intervention. He acknowledged that as in Iraq, the United States might unleash an uncertain future of tribal rivalry and chaos, in a country that has no institutions prepared to fill the vacuum if Colonel Qaddafi is driven from power.
Yet, he argued: “It’s hard to imagine any new government growing out of this opposition that is worse than Qaddafi.”
Maybe Lieberman should call his pal Silvio Berlusconi and ask him how Italy will do without access to their oil fields in Libya for a prolonged period as the country descends into tribal rivalry and chaos.
What disturbs me is the absolutely thoughtless way that so many Americans and American leaders are willing to commit our country to the use of violence and meddling in other countries. In some cases it is justifiable, but can someone do a week of research before they start sending in the 82nd Airborne?
I mean, Jesus, seriously…
You want to know how an adult thinks?
Tactical issues aside, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates is concerned, Pentagon officials say, about the political fallout of the United States’ attacking yet another Muslim country — even on behalf of a Muslim population. But he is cognizant of the No. 1 lesson of Iraq: That once the United States plays a major role in the ouster of a Middle Eastern leader, it bears responsibility for whatever state emerges in its place.
Exactly. Currently, we have no responsibility. It’s not our problem. And, Lord knows, we have our share problems and responsibilities right now. Gates’s view is wholly practical. When practical intersects with progressive, you get the Obama administration. I hope they continue to resist the pressure to add Libya to our list of endless hassles.
Just the other day, the Brits sent in a diplomat along with a military team of 8 soldiers for his protection. He was charged with meeting with “rebel leaders”. When the “rebels” came across these armed intruders, they captured them because they don’t want western intervention screwing up their revolution. They want it to be their revolution, not some outside western government’s.
President Obama is not likely to intervene unless the situation devolves to one in which Gaddafi is engaging in a purposeful massacre. Even then, I think that the US will do its best not to take the lead in any intervention.
<quote>He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,” the senior official said, quoting the president.</quote>So is he not counting the American Revolution then? Because without France and Spain we’d have been fucked.
Note: I agree with being very cautious about intervention but this statement is just silly.
Not exactly analogous. Maybe if Turkey and Iraq were helping the Libyan freedom fighters we could talk.
The term “progressive” in US politics has some historical roots and is not exactly the same as “liberal” although the mid-20th century saw the fusion of progressives and liberals (and briefly what was then called the left) on matters of policy. That fusion was activist on foreign policy with respect to Nazi Germany and split at the beginning of the Cold War (and the corresponding Red Scare). Liberals then became hawks until Vietnam and the collapse of the Democratic Party in 1968 brought an end to the liberal dominance of public opinion.
So here are some traditional progressive principles:
The elimination of corruption in politics, including the power of money to shape politics and the permissiveness regarding the embezzlement (through or against the law) of public funds and assets.
Modernization through the application of knowledge, especially scientific and technological knowledge.
Democratic processes that see the will of the people and the interest of the people carried out in practice.
Use of state-owned academic institutions as a source of new ideas for reform and modernization.
Fixing reforms into law through constitutional amendments.
Protection of women from abuse (the roots of the prohibition movement) and women’s rights.
Expanded educational opportunities extending into the working class. Expansion of common schools.
Professionalization of practice.
Regulation of markets to ensure fair competition.
Power for labor unions to serve as a check on business power.
Restrictions on immigration and acculturation into an American identity.
There really was only one foreign policy principle in the traditional progressive movement, and it was implicit in Wilson’s Fourteen Points. (And re-emerges in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights):
The progressive principles applied at home are those that every nation should apply and that should be applied by the US in dealing with other nations.
But foreign policy really is driven by domestic politics (as the point at which foreign policy touched on progressive politics shows, i.e. immigration). And it was not too hard for folks like Henry Luce to draw progressive sentiments into the service of the imperial agenda of the American Century.
But prior to 1945, imperial ambitions of nations were unquestioned. It was assumed to be the permanent of objective of nations to be imperial. It is hard to understate how dramatically the progressive movement, the left, and the peace movement transformed international norms during the first two-thirds of the 20th century. And how the progressive agenda and the agenda of the American Century coincided and fused in the way that the United Nations was set up. And how as a result, the first part of the Cold War was framed in terms of mutual security pacts, like NATO. And how those institutions and norms shaped the limits of power today.
But corrupt domestic politics also carry over into corrupt foreign policy agendas. And this is compounded when the domestic politics of the other country are also corrupt. And it is easier to move to corruption (fewer people involved) than to move to reform (requiring more people to overcome the power of money and rigged political institutions).
Which finally brings me to the original question: What does a progressive foreign policy look like today?
Foreign policy consists of a soft-power policy of diplomacy (a broad range of relationships and not just ambassadors and envoys) and a hard-power policy (national security policy).
For a progressive foreign policy, what is the aim of policy? That is, beyond the security and independence of domestic political, economic and civil society institutions and the physical security of the population. Among progressives, there is debate between the isolationists who would answer “Nothing” and others who would point to issues like world peace beyond our borders, development, sustainability, common economic and competitive standards, or various mixes of these.
Here is where the shorthand of past discussions can get in the way. What exactly does “our moral interests” refer to? The ability to go to bed at night without feeling guilt that your country has done something awful in your name? Wilsonian international “morality” carried out as a crusade? When progressives use this formulation, it is not clear after the millennium what exactly this means. The 20th century consensus has broken down that much. And it is not clear what makes it “ours” as opposed to a global moral interest even if we could talk about specifics.
Above all, a progressive foreign policy would recognize that our foreign policy and national security institutions are in great need of a rethinking, right-sizing, and an overhaul after 65 years on autopilot. They are dysfunctional, corrupt, oppressive, expensive, and potentially dangerous in their current state. The political climate to undertake this is not great right now, but progressive need to be prepared with proposals grounded in the current world situation when that political climate arrives. Otherwise, you will find institutions in search of a new enemy to justify their existence.
Two things.
“Modernization through the application of knowledge, especially scientific and technological knowledge.
Democratic processes that see the will of the people and the interest of the people carried out in practice.”
Those two things can often come into conflict for a variety of reasons. For instance in the next 25 years automation is probably going to obliterate large swathes of the white-collar work force.
Also I’d say progressive foreign policy should be a one-world government that is a liberal democracy based on human rights. It’s purpose? Colonization of the Milk Way. 😀
I don’t see how automation is a conflict with democratic processes unless you refuse to allow changes in work hours, salaries, and benefits or in the way that folks lay claims on society’s production. Of course conflict is what politics is supposed to resolve.
The one-world government will only remain a liberal democracy if there are sufficient real checks and balances and constant vigilance on the part of the people. And that is very difficult in practice.
So exactly how is space-faring imperialism progressive? 😉
More progressives should be Trekkies. It’s good for the soul, and for optimism.
McCain is all over the place telling anyone who will listen that the US should set up a no fly zone. He told that to the BBC today.
Well, he’s certainly an expert in pilots being unable to fly planes.
News reports say most of the forces fighting for Gaddafi are not Libyan, but mercenaries from other African countries. Why doesn’t the UN/US try controlling entry into Libya and offering to pay the families of mercenaries substantial (by local standards) money when the mercenaries return home and stay there?
This could deplete Gaddafi’s forces and flip the perception of US/foreign interference. And it would be a lot cheaper and less destructive to both sides than no-fly zones and other military intervention. There’s something wrong with the American culture that automatically goes for military solutions that are almost certainly going to end badly for everyone involved. There is much opposition in Libya to foreign military interference with their revolution. We should pay attention to them and think of ways to be on their side instead of just invaders, which is what a no-fly zone will inevitably become.
Any type of blockade of a country by another country is considered an act of war.
Gaddafi has three types of forces: the security services, elite units commanded by his sons, and mercenaries. The elite units and security services are drawn from the Gaddafi tribe from around Sirte and are vetted for loyalty to the Gaddafi family if not Muammar himself. The security services are even more highly vetted. Which is why the first troops thrown into battle were the mercenaries and what essentially were the equivalent of Somali “technicals” for armament–pickup trucks mounted with anti-aircraft guns and personnel armed with Kalashnikovs.
Now, it appears that the elite troops, including elite units of the air force are involved in the battles in the east and west. It is unclear whether the mercenaries are joining them or are mostly confined to terrorizing the streets of Tripoli with backup from the security services.
My guess is that the units fighting in the east are based in Sirte, Gaddafi’s birthplace and the location of his main resort residence.
The problem with paying off the families of mercenaries is that it is nearly impossible to establish who they are, and therefore to prevent fraud. Controlling entry into Libya is also difficult because mercenaries have been being transported by Air Afriquiya (the Libyan state airline) directly from countries south and east of Libya–Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Mauritania.
There is something fundamentally wrong about thinking that military policy equals foreign policy.
It depends on which side you are talking about as to whether there is a desire for a no-fly zone. The Libyan National Council (the rebels) would very much like for someone to take Libyan aircraft down. But they are very emphatic about any non-Libyan boots on the ground. Their actual preference would be for Arab countries, through the Arab League to establish a no-fly zone, taking the issue out of the hands of the UN Security Council. But members of the Arab League has the same problem the Security Council does–not setting a precedent that might threaten their hold on power. Because–a number of the members of the Arab League are currently having to deal with their protest and reform movements.
McCain, Lieberman, and company are just grandstanding and McCain is showing off that he was a Navy pilot. And “hero”. The rest are just war peacocks.
The media are pushing “Why doesn’t President Obama do something?” Obama is moving very deliberately and with the international community. The difficulty is to deal with those who are fighting the last humanitarian crisis, whether that be Rwanda or inter-war Iraq. Not letting emotions over either of those drive policy in this situation is Obama’s biggest challenge–with Gates and with Hillary Clinton.
So there’s fraud. We could afford it, compared with what a military intervention would cost. But from what you say, sending foreign mercenaries home wouldn’t be much help to the rebels.
I have no problem in principle with a no-fly zone. The big problem is that it has to become more than that — at least ground bombing (a foreign invasion), and as things escalate from there, probably boots on the ground. This is what McCain and Lieberman and the rest of the gung ho postures need everybody to forget, again.
I still think we could find ways to buy off enough regime defenders to turn the tide.
As Gates pointed out, a no-fly zone starts with bombing the Libyan air defense system–radar and communications installations–which might be close to civilian populations. Given the outcry about collateral deaths of civilians from US bombing elsewhere, even this first action could reverse the politics and provide Gaddafi with international support from the usual suspects–Russia, China, and every dictator in Arab and African countries who want to forestall similar movements in their countries. It is a major achievement to have UN Security Council unanimity in applying a travel ban and financial sanctions on Gaddafi.
If this is progressive, I wouldn’t want to see a conservative or reactionary one.
By the way, whether the people in the US want or dont want an intervention is irrelevant as even if they want it, it is not justified, and to gauge what is in it for us as any form of justification is a direct message that imperialism is the only consideration. Since when has the pursuit of imperial goals ever been progressive?
One day but no time soon will the US learn that allowing the peoples of country to determine their own future without any consideration for US imperial interests is the best for all.
That anything the US does or touches becomes instantly toxic in the arab world is largely down to foreign policies pursued through administration up to and including Obamas
Thank you for saying what I was thinking better than I could have.
Progressive my a**!