The Importance of Grey Areas

One thing we will be able to take away from watching the Bush administration's foreign policy ethos in action is that grey areas actually do matter. Drawing such a clear and distinct line in the sand, the "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" mentality, is so contrary to diplomatic thinking that its consequences can be readily seen across the world. We have needlessly and significantly hindered our diplomatic options because we paint a variety of actors with one broad brush. Human interaction, the essence of diplomacy, is too complex and yes, nuanced to be divided into two simple categories. What might come as a surprise to the W administration, there are people who may agree on most issues, have a difference of opinion on some and be completely antagonistic towards each other on others. It is vital to have the flexibility to deal with these differences and nuances in our complex world.

One area where this stubborn adherence to an idea does us the most damage is with regards to democracy promotion. This tenet has been the cornerstone of W's foreign policy, regardless of the consequences - intended and unintended - it brings. This administration has pushed autocratic governments in the Middle East to reform quickly and to usher in democracy. We literally forced it on Iraq and have told Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others, in no uncertain terms to open up their political system. This blind push does not take into consideration the situation in each of those countries. Are they ready for democracy? Do they have the institutions, the poles in place to support the democratic tent? What would the results be if elections were held in X country? And from a selfish perspective, is it in the best interest of the United States? Do we do ourselves - or democracy for that matter - any good by explicitly and forcefully pushing for it? Of course having democracy around the world has been and should continue to be an American foreign policy goal, but should it also be a means? Is democracy not the end result of a people's struggle for freedom? Does having this administration push it the way it has actually slow down the democratic march?

A great example is Palestine. An Arab populace holds a free election and brings to power Hamas. Yet the US considers it a terrorist element and therefore withdraw funds and support from the Palestinian government. So what are smart, rational people in the Middle East to think when they hear W call for democracy, while at the same time he blatantly discriminates against a democratically elected government? W undermines his own position, and he is either too obtuse to care or too clueless to notice. The notion of democracy appears to be,"yes, you can choose your leaders, but we have to accept them as well." The argument you hear from supporters of the administration is, "well they are a terrorist organization and we shouldn't support terrorists." True, but you must accept the consequences of you earlier assertion for democracy! You cannot abandon a central tenet of your foreign policy when it suits you. It reeks of hypocrisy. Enemies become unnecessary when you gut your own argument. Osama bin Laden and his ilk laugh and point at us and say, "See what they are trying to do? Do you see what 'democracy' truly means? It is the yoke of oppression with a new name." We play right into their hands, and it is shocking and sad that W and his ilk do not even seem to notice. All the military force we can muster and all of the sacrifices our soldiers are making will be for naught if we keep undermining our own credibility. We must remove the albatross of hypocrisy from around our necks, or the only 'slow bleed' we will suffer will be from the sides of our own moral standing.