Mr. Cameron, aware of floods of revolution sweeping the region, has signalled his support for the people yearning for their long-denied liberty: "We stand with the people and governments who are on the side of justice, the rule of law and freedom." Apart from such a standard, boiler-plate remark he also said something far, far more remarkable. Quote the Guardian:
But he indicated that the demonstrations presented a challenge for Britain as he dismissed as a "false choice" the old calculation that authoritarian regimes needed to be supported as the price of ensuring stability.
"For decades, some have argued that stability required controlling regimes and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk," Cameron said.
"So, the argument went, countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past."
He added: "But I say that is a false choice. As recent events have confirmed, denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability – rather, the reverse."
The prime minister said Britain and other western countries cannot impose any democratic model on the Arab world, but stressed: "That's not an excuse, as some would argue, to claim that Arabs or Muslims can't do democracy – the so-called Arab exception.
"For me, that's a prejudice that borders on racism. It's offensive and wrong and it's simply not true."
Why, you may ask, is this so remarkable? Not because he acknowledges that Arab or Muslim societies are indeed capable of sustaining democracy - that is a basic ability of any man, one of whose basic hopes is to live life as he, or she, wishes. No, it is so because of the implication for Britain's foreign policy. Mr. Cameron - if he is true to his word, and we have no reason to doubt him - will now have to base his policies on withdrawing support from such 'controlling' regimes While he does stress that Britain will not interfere and impose democracy as Tony Blair did in supporting the invasion of Iraq, his statements can be taken to imply support for any democratic movement in the Middle East - which is a form of interference in itself.
The Prime Minister, then, finds himself in the classical dillema of foreign policy: who to support and when? A basic tenet of foreign policy used to be that a state deals with government in power in another state, or at least refrains from dealing with any rebel movements. This is of course and out-dated outlook, a relic of the pre- Second World War, Peace of Westphalia years. But a catious - and in my view wise - foreign policy is based on non-interference. We deal with the government of the day, but do not support it, nor anyone else in any state, whether they struggle for liberty or oppression. Our values mean we do not prop up dictators in other states, but at the same time should mean we do not overthrow them. Let the people - in this case in the Middle East - do that, let them be the sole instrument of revolution. We will extend the hand of friendship in freedom when they succeed, but sadly cannot do that any earlier. They must determine their own fate, as we in the West have done.
Non-interference will appear to put the interest in stability over the value of freedom in the short-term, but in the long term it will show that only democracy organically grown will flourish. Artificial democracy, like the West's attempts at de-colonization and regime change, will wither as it has no fruited soil to take root in. Mr. Cameron seems to have understood that non-interference does not mean supporting dictators, but rather not supporting anyone, except with cautious and carefully-chosen words, either of warning or welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment