Alfred de Tavares <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mario, > please excuse me for butting in: > Depose the damned dictator by any and all means, but does any political situation justify " the need to .....impose freedom and democracy. "? > Mario replies: Alfred, firstly, you are welcome to butt in anytime.
Secondly, in answer to your question, I believe that, yes, democratic countries have an obligation to support freedom and democracy in countries that do not have it. The US made it possible for Afghanistan and Iraq to experience freedom and democracy, just as in Germany and Japan a generation ago, and, with the help of the Pope and Gorbachov, in the old Soviet Union countries more recently, but did NOT impose American-style democracy on any of these countries, leaving the details for the locals to decide. During his inauguration last January, President Bush announced a new American policy of proactively supporting democratic movements around the world. His reasoning is that this will bring world peace in the longer run. He bases his theory on the fact that there is no instance in history where a democratic country has attacked another democratic country. He specifically ruled out imposing US-style democracy, pledging to leave it up to the citizens to decide what kind of democracy they wanted to have. Also, the primary method will be through peaceful negotiations, hopefully with the UN involved. Force is always the last resort in US policy, regardless of what the anti-American critics may allege. I have never understood how people who live in freedom and democracy themselves, question the need for others to be provided with the opportunity to experience freedom and democracy. Especially for people like the Afghans and Iraqis, whose dictators were anything but benevolent.