Due to a recent trip to Chapters I have ended up with three new books for $21 dollars. In one of these books, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror, Natan Sharansky - an ex-Soviet political prisoner and politician in the Israeli government - provides a detailed account on the connection between freedom, tyranny, and peace.

Within his book, Sharansky makes the difference between "free" and "fear" societies. "Free societies" are classified by the fact that the citizens of such socities have the right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm. As the governments of these societies depend on their citizens for power, politicians will do everything that they can to avoid war and reach compromises on contentious issues; war is looked at as a last resort among citizens of "free societies". "Fear socities", on the other hand, are classifed as any society whose citizens do not express their views for fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm. Also concerned with preserving their own power, government leaders will use fear to control their populations, often through weapons and mass inculcation of the citizenry. Such mass inculcation is an attempt on the regime's behalf to slow down the natural process of alientation as citizens realize the failure and incompetence of their leaders and the misery that it is leaving them in. One of the most common types of mass inculcation, Sharansky argues, is that of creating external enemies- the idea of creating an enemy out of another country, people, ethnicity, or region (America, the West,the Jews, etc.)- in order to unite the masses and establish support for the current regime. At the same time these regimes must depend on these "enemies" for support, whether it be economic, scientific, technological, moral, etc., and therefore will attempt to appease such "enemies". This would explain much of the double-talk that came and continues to come out of the leaders of the Soviet Union, Palistine, and the President of Iran for example. The need to create such "enemies" will always prevent the regime from pursuing peace.

And this is the problem with today's society. Whether it be Venezuela, Iran, Israel/Palestine,or Sudan, Sharansky argues that diplomacys god-like elevation of stability within a moral vacuum sees "free socities" attempting to establish peace with totalitarian regimes who are not truly interested in it. "Stability is perhaps the most important word in the diplomat's dictionary. In its name, autocrats are embraced, dicatators are coddled, and tyrants are courted." In the current diplomatic environment, then, world peace, especially peace within the Middle East, will never be realized. For, as Sharansky often quotes, a government will only treat its neighbours as good as it treats its own citizens.

In order to create true global peace, then, Sharansky argues that "free societies" need to tie economic, technological, and any other form of assistance to how a regime treats its own citizens: treat them well and the aid will flow; treat them poorly and the aid will stop. In this way "free socities" will force "fear regimes" to stop distilling fear among their citizens, which in-turn will cause the disintegration of the regimes. He then describes in vivid detail how this was the case in the Soviet Union as well as how he thinks the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can be resolved. Moreover, Sharansky describes how George W. Bush has adopted such rhetoric from him in his beliefs on freedom, democracy, and peace in the War on Terror.

Besides describing how the Palestinian-Isralei conflict can be resolved, Sharansky uses his theories to support the War in Iraq. Bush, he argues, is apporaching politics with a degree of morality not commonly seen in international diplomacy. Contrary to popular political scientists who argue that political cultures run so deep that democracy cannot be imposed or forced upon countries, as their political cultures ultimately will not support it, Sharansky argues that this is possible through the aforementioned process. All peoples, he argues, wish to be free; give them the chance to be free and they will take it. He uses Germany and Russia as shining examples of this. Nevertheless, even he agrees that despite the fact that the Soviet regime has collapsed, it could still be questioned whether Russia is truly a "free society". Many South American countries that had democracys imposed on them in the 1970's and 80's have also failed. Perhaps Germany is the exception to this trend.

As the imposition of democracy (whether military or through economic/scientific sanctions) in a country rarely fully brings about immediate freedom (Iraq is another example of this failure) it appears that the political culture argument holds a lot of weight. Nevertheless, at the same time it would seem that people naturally desire freedom and "free societies" could assist in establishing such freedom. So who is right? Why has this worked in Germany and not in Iraq?

Part 2 to follow

i love that these where the kind of questions that Craig would ask and was always inspired buy his passion for Justice in international relations....i'm even more inspired now that you've departed so early...i will miss all the conversations that we could have had...but knowing you..you still would want them to take place...so to answer your question: I wonder if perhaps one of the differences between Germany and Iraq is economy, some political scientists have listed economic stability as a prerequisit for democracy...i know that Germany would also have been struggling at the time but compared to Iraq's situation, Germany would probably economically stable. Therefore looking at economy as more than buying and selling, as suggested by M.Atwood (by the way some of the greatest political voices are masked as artists) I wonder if perhaps Iraq had an economy that simply could not support such radical democratic "reform".


it helps to know beyond doubt that you are at rest in palms of a God of Justice and Mercy...until we meet again!