Critics of Sen. John Kerry argue that he sounds too much like President George W. Bush on foreign policy issues. After all, both candidates claim to support democracy in Afghanistan. Both claim to support democracy in Iraq. Most importantly, they both claim that democracy promotion is a crucial step in fighting the war on terror.
There’s only one problem—Bush’s record doesn’t match his rhetoric.
Bush says he supports democracy as an essential step in the fight against terrorism. In his Sept. 2003 Address to the Nation he asserted, “The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism.” Time and time again, this administration has made the claim that the creation of democracy in the Middle East will stabilize the region and give hope to the millions who live there, eliminating the breeding grounds for terrorism.
Bush’s policies in Algeria, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen, however, have shown his lack of genuine commitment to democracy through his support of authoritarian and semi-authoritarian governments. Even in Afghanistan and Iraq—the hallmarks of his foreign policy—his actions have failed to deliver on his promises. While the governments of many of these countries are “supporting” the war on terror, their repression is only fueling extremism and future terrorist activity. Democracy must be promoted through public, diplomatic and economic efforts.
The central problem in Bush’s plan for democracy in Afghanistan is his focus on rapid military victory with little attention to effective nation-building. For example, the Bush Administration has deferred to violent, territorial warlords in the governing of Afghanistan. Some of the most important positions in the new Afghani government are held by warlords who still maintain control of private armies, jails and the profits of the illegal opium trade.
The Bush Administration has clearly demonstrated its lack of interest in the creation of a viable democracy in Afghanistan. John Kerry understands that true democratization comes through the long, steady process of creating democratic institutions. Of course he recognizes that military force is necessary against terrorists that threaten our nation. Kerry understands, however, that long-term democratization efforts are best achieved through a combination of diplomatic pressure, education and economic support—not crushing military might.
Unlike Bush, Kerry supports his statements with meaningful efforts to promote lasting democracy in the world. As a Senator, he demonstrated this commitment by backing the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 over the Bush Administration’s active opposition. The plan authorized a reconstruction package that would span several years and also increased the role of international peacekeeping in the country. As President, Kerry would call upon NATO to send additional troops to Afghanistan, speed the disarmament and removal of warlords, accelerate the training of police forces and attack the expanding opium trade.
Now, it appears as though the seams are unraveling in Iraq as well. In a press conference Sept. 7, 2004 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld openly admitted that in several key cities—Ramadi, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra—the United States has been unable to wrest control from the Sunni rebels who remain devoted to Saddam Hussein. According to General Myers, that responsibility lies with the interim Iraqi government. “While U.S. forces or coalition forces can do just about anything we want to do,” he said, “it makes a lot more sense that it be a sustained operation, one that can be sustained by Iraqi security forces.” What the Bush Administration fails to recognize is that democracy is not secured by the removal of the repressive regime, but by the integrity of the successive government—a government that is not yet ready to stand on its own.
Despite Bush’s claims of supporting democracy, the events in Afgahnistan and Iraq demonstrates Bush’s lack of foresight in his democratization policy. While creating a functional democracy will certainly entail lower risks of becoming a breeding ground for terrorism, a truncated push for democracy can easily lead to a failed state with conditions ripe for the growth of terrorism. Unlike Bush, Kerry understands the gravity of this risk. As President, John Kerry would take the steps necessary to promote lasting democracy. Not only is this a moral imperative, but it is also essential for the national security of the United States.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.