REALISTS RESURGENT ?: BUSH'S COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY PUT TO THE TEST

In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, liberal idealism re-emerged as the leading strain in American foreign policy. The Realist commitment to corrupt, tyrannical regimes was correctly identified as fostering a ripe environment for the spread of virulent anti-American Islamism. The multilateralists were similarly on the defensive, as international institutions were exposed as inadequate to the task of combatting terror, and with the exception of England, most of our allies were more worried about American responses to terror than terror itself. If one went by the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, it was a full-fledged convert to the idealist path. Democratic values were to become a centerpiece of American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. In one burst of American idealism, we would make the world more like us, rather than face the consequence of having the evils of the world visit America.

Almost from the outset, the Realists launched a counter-offensive. The black and white terms of the idealists "lacked nuance," and did not sufficiently compromise to the real world. Bush, in embracing idealism, was demonstrating his famous lack of depth, acting the "cowboy." The constant undertone of the Realists was to slow down, scale back, blend in to international consensus and avoid upsetting the status quo. They've had a mixed record so far - failing to impose a policy of "evenhandedness" in the wake of the Palestinian terror campaign, but suceeding at thwarting a reevaluation of U.S. - Saudi relations. The jury is still out, therefore, on whether the Bush commitment to democracy is substantive, or merely rhetorical. Three issues that surfaced in the past week will be particularly telling barometers of how far Bush is willing to break with the realist precedent of the State Department.

The first is continuing imprisonment of Said Ibrahim, Egypt's leading democracy advocate. Thomas Friedman, in his latest column, rightly raked the Administration over the coals for its indifference to Ibrahim's detention. What exactly are we getting for the billions of dollars we spend on Muburak's regime? The Realists claim that it well worth it to have Egypt nominally "pro-American", at "peace" with Israel and cracking down on Islamic militants. From a idealist perspective, this policy is madness. We are funding a regime that is creating an environment destined to breed anti-American Islamist terrorism. Mubarak's thugs might be able to imprison the next Mohammed Atta, but only a man such a Ibrahim can create an environment in which there are no more Mohammed Attas.

The second is the long-simmering feud between China and Taiwan, where the Taiwaneese have once more begun making noise about independence, and the Chinese regime has responded with violent threats. For the realists, preference needs to be given to the Chinese regime, which is a major power who's assitance we need in securing global order. For the idealists, we must remain steadfast behind a democratic, free Taiwan - and prevent millions from falling under Beijing's tyrannical rule.

The third issue is the future of the Kurds in a post-Saddam Iraq. For the first time in modern history, the Kurds have enjoyed self-rule in the no-fly zone in the north. For realists, however, Kurdish autonomy in a federated Iraq is to be avoided at all costs in order to preserve stability in the Kurdish sections of Turkey. In addition realists fear that this will set a dangerous precedent in a region with colonialist-imposed artificial borders. For idealists, however, the principle of self-determination, and the past sufferings of the Kurds at the hands of centralized Iraqi rule demands the creation of a safe haven. Kurdish rights trump "state" inviolability. This is an issue that has been raised by realists to show the "unworkability" of an idealist foreign policy. But idealist foreign policy need not reject pragmatic solutions. It is a hard, but not impossible task to reconcile Kurdish and Turkish interests. The broad outlines would be the creation of a Kurdish homeland in northern Iraq in return for an abandonment of any claims to the remainder of Kurdistan.

These are the challenges - will the Bush Administration have a grand legacy of democratic advancement, or empty rhetoric? And if Bush fails, will the Dems take up the cause, or simply offer up a multilateralist varient of same realist path?