June 29, 2005
Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism and those who circulate within the realms of this 'movement' have received more than their share of attention over the last few years. Due largely to their pro war stance on Iraq and demands for forceful action to be taken against Iran's perceived nuclear weapons ambitions, neoconservatism has been depicted as a concerted movement hell bent on the forceful democratisation of the world.
While this is true for many neoconservatives it is also somewhat of a caricature. In the case of Iran, many of those seen as neoconservative are split over the course of action the United States should take. While there are those who advocate a hawkish line on Iran there are just as many who resign themselves to the fact that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon in the not too distant future, leaving diplomacy as the likely alternative. While some neoconservatives advocate the position of forceful democratisation, there are others who desire to set limits on such ambitious undertakings. And then there are those among the neoconservatives, primarily of the older generation, who see the forceful imposition of democracy as utopian.
In the midst of this debate I would like to provide the reader with an example of why I feel many of these claims to be misguided. While some commentators have been focusing on the aforementioned debates, an equally important and engaging debate has been taking place in the pages of the realist/neoconservative foreign policy journal The National Interest. The debate is between two of the most recognisable neoconservative intellects; Francis Fukuyama author of the renowned 'End of History' thesis and Charles Krauthammer a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. At the core of the debate lies Fukuyama's discontent with Krauthammer's vision for the future of American foreign policy post 9/11 and Iraq. Here is a prime example of the differences between some neoconservatives.
Krauthammer articulated his theory in an address he delivered at the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004. He argued that America's traditional foreign policy approach in a post-9/11 world was no longer adequate for the sole superpower. Krauthammer's solution was to elaborate on an argument he forwarded at the end of the Cold War. What he called the 'Unipolar Moment', where America no longer constrained by the threat of the Soviet Union, could set about reshaping the world in a democratic image.
America, having failed to do this, had unwittingly contributed to the environment that had led to the attacks of 9/11. For Krauthammer America had taken a holiday from history when it failed to capitalise on this moment. In the post 9/11 world a foreign policy of Democratic Globalism would be required. Democratic Globalism was an amalgam of the foreign policy schools of Wilsonian Idealism and Realism. However, as Krauthammer points out the danger in this line of thinking is the lack of restraint, inherent in the policy. To overcome this difficulty Krauthammer suggested an increase in the realist component of Democratic Globalism, that "[to] support democracy everywhere, but... commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity - meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom." (original emphasis) This Krauthammer dubs Democratic Realism. Krauthammer's Democratic Realism aims at restraining the headstrong desire to impose democracy the world over, which would severely overburden the resources of the United States and likeminded nations. By attacking the heart of the problem, such as those regimes sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism, one can plant the seeds for a democratic future.
For Fukuyama the archetypal example of Krauthammer's unipolarity argument was the invasion of Iraq. Fukuyama's disgruntlement is borne out of what he perceives to be a theory "strangely disconnected from reality." The prolonged and unexpected savageness of the resistance is ample proof of the problems a Democratic Globalist and/or Democratic Realist alike will face in trying to forcefully implant democracy upon a nation bearing no semblance of the institutions necessary to make the democratic experiment work.
Fukuyama argues that the spread of democracy must be encouraged as far as possible but cannot be forcefully imposed. Democracy's legitimacy must be derived from the people who live under it; in that sense it has to be a natural progression.
The list of argument and counter argument to this debate is endless. However from this we can see that neoconservatism is not always the concerted, unwavering intellectual movement it is often made out to be. In addition I would suggest that it is the problem of Iraq that is creating many more headaches for the intellectuals and their ideology than the problem of Iran.
See Franklin Foer's article 'Neocon v. Neocon on Iran' in The New Republic, 20/12/04
Author: Aaron Wolmer
Posted on June 29, 2005 11:42 PM