[Dean's World] Dave Schuler: Articulating Principles

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Schuler:
Articulating Principles
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183300897.shtml


   If [1]Aziz's post the other day, was an attempt at developing
   consensus, it was a spectacular failure. If it was an expression of a
   personal manifesto, only he can be the judge of its success. If it was
   an attempt at articulating principles against which the desireability
   or effectiveness of proposals for courses of action can be made, then
   the task has barely begun and I'd like to reinvigorate the process.

  Recap

   Aziz articulated four principles. I've re-phrased some of them largely
   for succinctness and clarity and, if I'm misrepresenting Aziz's
   intent, it was not my intention.

   I believe that the relative priority of principles is actually more
   important than the principles themselves and, consequently, I reject
   all of Aziz's principles as axioms while I can accept at least the
   first two conditionally. Here they are:

    There is an affirmative responsibility for nations to step in to prevent
    the ongoing mass murder of another nation's people by its own government or
    as a consequence of the inaction of that government, using military force
    if necessary.

   I found the original formulation of this principle troubling, too
   vague, and utterly unacceptable in its original form. We oppose murder
   because we believe it is evil not because it is directed against a
   particular group. I continue to have misgivings about an affirmative
   responsibility of this nature but I can accept it as a benchmark
   against which to weigh a course of action.

    All nations have equal responsibilities to act in proportion to their
    means.

   If nations do have affirmative responsibilities towards other nations,
   then I agree that it's reasonable that the responsibility to act be in
   proportion to a country's wealth and income.

    One country can't turn another country into a democracy by force.

   This principle is clearly counter-factual but let's not get bogged
   down in arguments about history on this. That derailed Aziz's original
   post--let's not repeat that. Lock it up. Put it away.

    Democracy is an end-product of liberalization, not an initial condition.

   I, personally, find this statement simultaneously overgeneral and
   facetious. I use the term "democracy" to mean "liberal democracy with
   protection of minority rights, the rule of law, and an independent
   judiciary" and I think many Americans do the same. The argument that
   democracy in America grew out of the superstructure of economic
   prosperity is appealing but, unfortunately, founders on facts.
   American democracy evolved before we were wealthy and there are any
   number of countries that are democratic despite being poorer than some
   tyrannies.

   I think the experience with "liberalization" in the sense of extending
   civil rights without concurrently extending political rights has been
   mixed and it's too early to tell whether some of the efforts in this
   direction will bear fruit. So, for example, I think the Shah was
   engaged in early experiments along these lines (for which he's
   condemned by Islamists who object to the liberalization itself). I'd
   certainly be interested in hearing about examples in which civil
   rights have successfully moved forward in without political rights.

  Moving forward

   At this point I'd like to suggest some other principles along which to
   evaluate policies. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm
   advocating the principles. I'm merely suggesting that they are
   principles by which policies could be evaluated.

    Sovereignty

   Nations should be allowed their own distinctive political and social
   arrangements within their own borders.

    Equality

   Nations are deemed equal to other nations in the international order.
   Note that this principle may be in direct conflict with Aziz's
   principle of proportional responsibility, above.

    Self-Defense

   Nations should be allowed to defend themselves when they, their
   citizens, or the property of their citizens are attacked by other
   nations or the people of those nations.

    Self-Interest

   Nations should be allowed to pursue their own interests and the
   interests of their people by peaceful means. Note that this principle
   may be in conflict with the principle of sovereignty, above.

  And Beyond

   Let's open the floor to enumerating other principles by which courses
   of action in foreign policy could be evaluated. That the principles
   may be in conflict with other principles shouldn't be a deterrent. As
   I noted above, I also think it's important to put these various
   principles into relative importance.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1183123999.shtml