international law

JIHAD vs. McWorld was good, but this is much better! Above all the author well understands the importance of what George Washington once emphasized as a maxim of American Foreign Policy: international coordination. What the Bush Administration has done so far is almost reversal of the heritage. Preventive war (means nothing but invasion) not Preemptive war, list of 'Rogue States,' democratization with missiles, etc. Only 10 out of about 200 countries reluctantly follow the U.S. The author excellently illuminates such endangering America. Really brilliant! I am convinced that Prof. Hoffmann also recommends.

This book was welcome follow-up to Benjamin Barber's famous book Jihad vs. McWorld and in it he expands on the themes of already established in that book. In many ways the first book foretold the present foreign policy challenges faced by the 'North'and the 'Sout'h'. However, unlike harsher dialectics proposed by Samuel Huntington and more recently Richard perle in his draconian solution to world problems featured in the lamentable but unequivocably harsh "An End To Evil", Barber does not speak in terms of black or white. His approach is well reasoned, and differs in tone even from other alternative, or so called 'liberal' texts that criticize America's current foreign policy approach. Barber writes with reason and suggests that rather than exporting democracy and markets, the more priviliged world under America's leadership should be engaged in the building of citizens and civil society first, for it is on that basis that lasting democracies are built. I found the book became more interesting and engaging in the second half where the argument against the idea of a preventive war, turns into an argument against the éxport'of democracy for the creation of the right structures and circumstances that help to build and sustain democracy in the developing world. This is an important work that should be read by all those who wish to understand - reasonably and without hyperbole - the dangers of America's current foreign policy

I've been thinking of reading this book; Reading Gaetan Lion's negative review convinced me to go ahead, since in my view Lion's polemic overreaches. This is one way I decide whether or not to read or not read books -- by profiling the reviewers and analyzing their polemics.

In more than 100 reviews on Amazon, Lion writes in a concise, informative way, giving generally balanced in-depth reviews. But something in this book peeves him. I wan't to find out what it is, since his overt criticims just don't seem justified to me.

In his review, Lion criticizes Barber for failing to recommend specific solutions to the Jihad vs. McWorld dilemma. Lion finds Barber's "preventative democracy" too unspecific.

I would suggest that the principles of preventative democracy are so simple that Barber felt no need to elaborate. Brainstorming a few as fast as I can type and think:

1) Pay for election monitoring processes (UN does this well)
2) Support micro-loans, a well known economic strategy
3) Do not send weapons systems to dictators, this just distracts
them from trying to become more democratic.
4) Give grants for internet infrastructure to increase the
power of free media in countries where there is little
5) Do not train military advisors from countries that do not
practice democracy.
6) Support religious freedom
7) Increase cultural exchanges with so-called "bad" countries
to allow democratic ideals to penetrate their insularity

I don't understand why Lion faults Barber for omitting specifics as a wide slate of democracy-enhancing programs is well-known.

Lion also writes, strangely that "[Barber] forgets that we have tried the "preventive democracy" route, supported by hundreds of $millions in foreign aid, in our dealings with the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire."

In my view, the historical reality in Iraq and Afghanistan, the current hot spots, is that most of US funding went into speculative military alliances, not democracy making or nation building. Specifically,

1) In Iraq, funding went to support a CIA coup and install and sustain Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years as tyrannical dictator of Iraq, complete with Stalinist purge (and execution) of parlimentary members. The US helped arm Hussein with chemical weapons (which he used with delight against the Kurds), fund his war against Iran in retaliation for the Islamic radicalism inspired there by US support of another dictator, The Shah. This aid was not, as Lion suggests, preemptive democracy, but preemptive dictatorship support.

"Check out the details:

http://208.39.216.125/news/2003/12/5936.php

The war cost is currently at 95 billion dollars. So when Barber suggests using multilateral democratic persusion, it seems obvious to me that he means spending that 95 billion not on war, but on democracy-making alternatives. After all, if we are going to spend 95 billion dollars, we should invest it in democracy. That's the point. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's so much more cost effective to support fledgeling democracies than fight failed dictatorships. Way more cost effective. It's like Head Start. Every dollar in up front pays itself off four times over in future costs.

2) In Afghanistan, the US funded the Taliban against the Soviet Union; At the time, the President's CIA men bragged at what a neat strategy they had cooked up, blending fanatical, fundamentalist Islam with militarism to create a guerilla army that defeated the USSR in the first Mother of All Battles. After the US defeated the Taliban though, they just migrated to Pakistan, where they continue today in huge numbers. We still have the Taliban, only they're in Pakistan. One wonders what would have happened if Afghanistan had simply waited out Soviet domination for a few more years and then gone independent when the rest of the Eastern Block of the USSR broke up.

In essense, both countries manipulated USA cold war paranoia. The pretended to be our friends just long enough to get enough aid and arms to take over their countries, though they disguised this as it was happenging. Once they had won their battles though, the psychological inertia of the shadow warrior state took over, along with a tyrannical facism (Iraq), and fundamentalism (Afghanistan).

One interesting futurism: Barber is an advisor on foreign affairs to democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, potentially the next president of the United States. If Dean is elected, we are going to be hearing alot more about Mr. Barber. He could potentially even be appointed Secretary of State.

Read the book, and see what you think.

Kip Leitner