I thought I’d missed my opportunity to post this because Newsweek starts charging for content after only a week, but luckily the author himself has archived columns available for free on his own site. I’m talking about Fareed Zakaria’s article in the June 27, 2005 (I know, I know, I’m running a bit behind here) Newsweek suggesting that US sanctions keep unwanted governments in power, even help consolidate their power, while free and open trade and discourse often result in a changing of the guard.
For almost five decades the United States has put in place a series of costly policies designed to force Cuba to dismantle its communist system. These policies have failed totally. Contrast this with Vietnam, also communist, where Washington has adopted a different approach, normalizing relations with its former enemy. While Vietnam remains a Leninist regime in many ways, it has opened up its society, and the government has loosened its grip on power, certainly far more than that of Fidel Castro. For the average person in Libya or Vietnam, American policy has improved his or her life and life chances. For the average person in Iran or Cuba, U.S. policy has produced decades of isolation and economic hardship.
I like this idea.. it would be interesting to explore it further. At least, I agree that Libya and Iran going in opposite directions. Hard-line clerics consolidated their power even further in Iran with the unexpected victory of Mahmood Ahmadinejad in the presidential run-off vote last Friday. But since Libya has come back into the international fold (and into America’s good graces) that country’s opposition leaders, who last weekend met in London to call on Moammar Gadhafi to loosen his grip on power, seem emboldened and empowered.
In fact, all of the Middle East seems to be heading toward reform (albeit very very slowly) with the exception of Syria and Iran – oddly enough, these are the two countries the U.S. has isolated and ostracized. While the rest of the region progresses, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini are cementing their grip in the face of a perceived threat.
My PoliSci prof at HACC always said that revolutions don’t start when things are bad — they start when things begin to get better. He also said that economic change without political growth is a surefire way to breed instability.
It seems almost intuitive to me that improved quality of life provides an impetus for political change. People who are spending most of their energy trying to feed and clothe themselves and their families probably don’t have a lot of energy left over for working toward change.
In addition, free exchange of goods also likely means a freer exchange of ideas, even if only incidentally.