Gösta H. Lovgren
December 15th, 2007, 11:17 AM
Nation Building and Political Violence
Among the most important assumptions behind U.S. foreign policy
toward Iraq is the ability to promote democracy through military
force, occupation, and the implantation of electoral processes. In a
new op-ed titled, “Does Nation-Building Work?” Independent Institute
Research Fellow James Payne addresses this assumption and provides a
fundamental explanation as to why the U.S. experiment in Iraq has
gone so sour.
The legacy of nation building leaves much to be desired. “The record
shows that of the 51 times the United States and Great Britain
attempted nation-building by force over the past 150 years, they
left
behind an enduring democracy in only 14 cases, or 27 percent of the
time,” explains Payne. The failure goes back to the first serious
U.S. attempt at democratization at gunpoint – in Cuba right after
the
Spanish-American War. “In Iraq, the batting average for
nation-building is zero,” writes Payne. “The British occupied it
from
1917 to 1932, and again from 1941 to 1947. Despite their efforts to
cultivate democracy, civil strife, warlordism, and dictatorship
emerged both times after the troops left.”
Payne argues that “policymakers have overlooked the first, necessary
requirement for democracy, which is a low level of political
violence.” This explains the relative success at democratization in
Germany, which “had a basically nonviolent politics” until “the
peaceful political elite was temporarily displaced by Hitler’s gang
of thugs.” Without a peaceful political tradition, nations like Iraq
cannot be forcibly made into democracies. “If you invade a
politically violent society, you have to expect more violence—civil
strife, terrorism, and repressive dictatorship—after you leave,”
according to Payne.
“Does Nation-Building Work?“ by James L. Payne (12/6/07) Spanish
Translation
Also see Payne’s related work in the new Independent Institute book,
Opposing the Crusader State: Alternatives to Global Interventionism,
edited by Robert Higgs and Carl P. Close.
================================================== ==============
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles ...
Willy S.
================================================== ==============
Among the most important assumptions behind U.S. foreign policy
toward Iraq is the ability to promote democracy through military
force, occupation, and the implantation of electoral processes. In a
new op-ed titled, “Does Nation-Building Work?” Independent Institute
Research Fellow James Payne addresses this assumption and provides a
fundamental explanation as to why the U.S. experiment in Iraq has
gone so sour.
The legacy of nation building leaves much to be desired. “The record
shows that of the 51 times the United States and Great Britain
attempted nation-building by force over the past 150 years, they
left
behind an enduring democracy in only 14 cases, or 27 percent of the
time,” explains Payne. The failure goes back to the first serious
U.S. attempt at democratization at gunpoint – in Cuba right after
the
Spanish-American War. “In Iraq, the batting average for
nation-building is zero,” writes Payne. “The British occupied it
from
1917 to 1932, and again from 1941 to 1947. Despite their efforts to
cultivate democracy, civil strife, warlordism, and dictatorship
emerged both times after the troops left.”
Payne argues that “policymakers have overlooked the first, necessary
requirement for democracy, which is a low level of political
violence.” This explains the relative success at democratization in
Germany, which “had a basically nonviolent politics” until “the
peaceful political elite was temporarily displaced by Hitler’s gang
of thugs.” Without a peaceful political tradition, nations like Iraq
cannot be forcibly made into democracies. “If you invade a
politically violent society, you have to expect more violence—civil
strife, terrorism, and repressive dictatorship—after you leave,”
according to Payne.
“Does Nation-Building Work?“ by James L. Payne (12/6/07) Spanish
Translation
Also see Payne’s related work in the new Independent Institute book,
Opposing the Crusader State: Alternatives to Global Interventionism,
edited by Robert Higgs and Carl P. Close.
================================================== ==============
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles ...
Willy S.
================================================== ==============