Why? On the one hand, the LFP pursues its idealistic goal of forging democracy everywhere, while on the other hand, their realistic goal is their own peace and safety. Kant said that there is no conflict between the two, actually, they are mututally supportive. Guess what? Not true.
Pushing democracy and nation-building regardless of socioeconomic conditions, let alone culture and religfious conditions, has been causing failed states, rogue states, therefore terrorists and pirates, and chaos and anarchy of the world system. No one is happy about human rights abuse or dictatorship, but if the solution is "too simple and naive", then we can expect lawlessness and collapse of security boundaries. Some analysts believe that the globalization, or tech development contributed to and empowered non-state actors. That's only partially true. LFP's drive to elevate human rights and democracy above sovereignty and security did the work of deconstruct states, which directly releases those factors into the global stage. So here's the dilemma, if LFP denies the legality of other forms of government than their own, they will undermine these regimes and increase the possibility of failed states, but if they balk before these regimes, they are violating their own democratic decrees. It's time for the LFP to get real "smart", like openning up to Cuba and negotiate with Iran, trying to engage and listen before they scream around.
It's a hard choice. Effective government may not be a democratic majority government in the short run and the result of nation-building very much depends upon local tradition, culture and economic reality. In the end, what's more important?
No comments:
Post a Comment