For all practical purposes, internal affairs in most countries have ceased to be purely domestic affairs. Whether we like it or not, one of the consequences of globalization has been the erosion of national sovereignty. In economic matters national boundaries have long ceased to exist.
Also regarding political matters, the traditional notion of sovereignty has been eroded. Today domestic political developments in one state have ceased to be the exclusive domain of that state. The international community, and the big political powers that play leading roles in it, take an active interest in what is happening in other parts of the world. Also in political terms, the world has become interdependent, and interventions have become the rule and not the exception.
YUSHA
This dramatic process is driven also by the proliferation of the international media, foremost the global television channels and, more recently, the Internet. Within seconds, political developments are known in all other parts of the globe. In more than one case, television pictures of gruesome events have forced governments to react -- and intervene. Witness the impact of TV on foreign policy evolving in the case of Sudan. Were it not for the images on CNN, BBC and other media, the public pressure on the governments to intervene and stop the killings would hardly exist.
While globalization is one major trend of our times, the spread of democracy on a global level is another epoch-making development. Recent decades witnessed an unparalleled increase in democratic governance in all major parts of the word. According to Freedom House, a US institute that has monitored the evolution of political and civil liberties on a global level for over 30 years, "the highest-ever proportion of the world's population is living in freedom today."
The proliferation of democracy has many causes, some related to domestic developments, others to international forces. From a liberal angle, human nature and a desire for freedom may be termed the main driving forces behind the quest for democracy throughout the world. Further factors propelling democracy have been the apparent failures of authoritarianism in many countries and the liberating effects of modern information technologies on the minds of millions of people throughout the world.
Apart from these local determinants, the international environment by and large has also been supportive. Democratic governance has become an international benchmark no government wants to ignore. Even notorious dictatorships such as North Korea and Myanmar claim that they are democracies, although there exists a general consensus that so called people's democracies ruled by one monolithic party or the military do not meet the standards of what is generally considered democracy.
The promotion of democracy has become a part of international relations, as most industrialized countries have elaborate programs to promote democratic governance beyond their own borders. By so doing, they inevitably interfere in the political affairs of foreign lands. For more than one reason, this raises serious issues.
I have been actively involved in democracy assistance programs in many parts of the world for more than 10 years. In my eyes, international democracy promotion is justifiable only as long as it is conducted in close cooperation with and upon explicit invitation of relevant political forces of the host society. This promotion of democracy must be limited to legitimate methods and respect the laws of the host country.
A radically new situation has evolved since leading Western governments have turned to military means with the declared aim of promoting democratic values. This "liberal imperialism" has its origin in the late 1990s with the bombing of Serbia, but has reached a high point with the ongoing military occupation of Iraq.
According to the supporters of the military strategy, the ultimate political objective of the war is the democratization of the greater Middle East. For me as a liberal, bonding the words "liberal" and "imperialism" is an unbearable provocation: Liberalism always aims to increase freedom, while imperialism stands for the exact opposite, domination by a foreign power.
I could mention numerous tactical and fundamental arguments why I believe today's Anglo-American "liberal imperialism" in the Middle East is misguided -- and will fail to reach its stated objectives. While, yes, the democratic community of nations (or whatever is left of it following US President George W. Bush's unilateral behavior) cannot sit by idly when gross human rights violations are happening, the selectiveness in the application of the imperial doctrine discredited it even before it was implemented. While US soldiers are killing (and dying) in Iraq for the supposed promotion of democracy, their government has turned a blind eye on -- and is even propping up -- other tyrannies not far away.
It is a fallacy that a democratic society can be established by decree or with guns and cannons.
Democratization of undemocratic societies is a highly complex social, political and cultural process which may take years or even decades, depending on the specific conditions. For democracy to blossom, certain elements are indispensable: pluralism, the evolution of an educated middle class, the emancipation of women, the independence of the judiciary and the presence of independent media.
In other words, the modernization of society is a prerequisite for democratization. Therefore, if governments truly wish to promote democracy in foreign lands (and not their own imperial ambitions) they should first focus their efforts on modernizing said societies.
Otherwise, if they continue to use guns to force their proclaimed democratic principles on other peoples, they might be in for an unpleasant surprise.
If given the chance to express themselves in free elections, the people might end up quite democratically electing the likes of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists into government.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative of the Friedrich-Naumann Foundation in the Philippines.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath