When it comes to the conduct of foreign policy, having a
democratic system of government at home is more than a double-edge sword
because it has, in effect, three sides. They are: the good, the bad and the
ugly.
The good is that freely expressed debates generate insight
that gives the government several options to choose from. The bad is that some
people get carried away and say more than is necessary, which can give
foreigners a heartburn. The ugly is that the democratic system can easily be
manipulated by those harboring bad intentions. They often work to corner the
country, and get it to do diplomatic hara kiri abroad.
It happens at times
on this planet that things return to normal, at least for a while, following a
regional conflict between two or more nations, or after a conflict that is so
widespread, it is dubbed world war. Things going back to normal means that no
nation is making territorial claims on another nation. Under such conditions,
those that survived the conflict rely on their human resources to rebuild the
home front. And this is when the democratic system of government truly shines
as demonstrated by the history of Western Europe when compared to that of Eastern Europe following the second world war. And there
was, of course, the United
States of America where democracy served the
country well despite the few moments – such as the internment of Japanese
Americans – when the normal functioning of the system was put on hold.
But then, America
got involved in the Korean war; an undertaking that did not turn out well for
any of the nations that participated. Shortly after that, America got sucked into the Vietnam
war; an undertaking that turned into a disaster. This happened because
unfettered democracy at home caused America
to lose – not so much on the battlefield that was Indochina – but on the home
front where opposition to the war weakened the morale in America and
strengthened the resolve of the North Vietnamese and their Communist allies.
This was a glaring demonstration of the bad side of democratic rule.
As to the ugly side
of democracy, an example of it can be seen in the wall Street Journal editorial
that came under the title: “China's 'Marshall Plan'” and the subtitle: “Xi
Jinping bids to take leadership away from the U.S.,” published in the Journal
on November 12, 2014.
Despite the fact
that America, its Western allies and the world have done better economically
when the old colonial powers of Western Europe, and the neo-colonial power that
was America, abandoned the system of gunboat diplomacy (by which they obtained
cheap resources while maintaining the other nations in a state of
underdevelopment,) the editors of the journal continue to trumpet the virtues
of the ugly mentality that eroded American power, even caused it to be defeated
at times.
Thus, instead of
welcoming the increased “Cooperation” that will result from the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing, the editors begin their argument
by adopting a hostile posture: “This is the era of Chinese assertiveness … Mr.
Xi's vision includes a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific … Beijing will
create a Fund to build ports, roads and rail to link up the region, a project
dubbed China's Marshall Plan … Mr. Xi's charm offensive is an attempt to
out-American the Americans.”
After telling how
beneficial such peaceful approach to world diplomacy will be to China , the editors wonder: “the larger question
is whether Asians welcome a transfer of trade and investment leadership from
the U.S. to China .” And
they speculate about the evil motives of the Chinese: “the day when Bejing asks
its neighbors to choose sides may not be far off … The new model suggests
Chinese leaders want to resurrect the imperial tributary system … taking
Chinese aid creates an obligation to do Bejing's bidding in international
forums.”
This meaning to
out-American the Americans, you ask: what's wrong with that? Was America wrong
during all the years that it practiced that policy? If not, why is it that the
gander cannot enjoy the sauce which the goose normally enjoys?
So the question: is
the ugly side of a democratic system going amok beginning to show? If the
answer is not yet, here is where it reveals itself in spades. The editors ask:
“Will Beijing's gambit work?” And they point the finger of blame at their own:
“The Obama Administration half-hearted embrace of the TPP also hasn't helped. “
And so, they go
partisan: “though that may change with a Republican Congress.” And they
badmouth China :
“Asian nations have good reason to distrust a government bent on recapturing
past glories.”
Now they urge: “That
gives Mr. Obama an opportunity to recapture the trade initiative in Asia ,” which probably means torpedo this summit and
whisper in the ear of the smaller Asian nations a policy of “carrots and
sticks,” modeled after the old gunboat diplomacy ... but modernized to suit the
times.