The Globalist Takeaway: Paul Wolfowitz on Economic Development, Democracy, and the Rule of Law
by Cathy Huang:
Few presidents, much less statesmen in general, have doctrines named after them. But Paul Wolfowitz has that and a most impressive political resume. After teaching classes at Yale, Wolfowitz served as the US Ambassador to Indonesia, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, and President of the World Bank from 2005 to 2007. On February 23rd, the Yale Undergraduate Law Review invited Mr. Wolfowitz back to Yale to speak on the issues of economic development, democracy, and the rule of law.
Wolfowitz is perhaps best remembered for his term as Deputy Secretary of Defense during the Bush administration when he, along with Scooter Libby, shaped much of the Bush Doctrine and the president’s policies in Iraq. A neo-conservative, Wolfowitz has consistently championed the United States as the world’s superpower and backed unilateral U.S. foreign policy decisions during his civil term. However, in an academic setting, Mr. Wolfowitz shared his thoughts on the current administration’s handling of political unrest in Middle Eastern and African states. He opened with examples of successful 20th-century revolutions around the world. Citing the triumphs of revolutionaries against autocratic heads of states in Hungary, the Philippines, Panama, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, and South Africa, Wolfowitz urged the audience to resist yoking the unfolding Egyptian case with Iranian ousting of the Shah in 1989. Instead of “wringing hands” over the volatility of Egypt, Wolfowitz insisted that one first celebrate the fact that Mubarak is gone.
“I’m not saying we should forget about the Iranian revolution. I’m not saying things will be hunky-dory in Egypt, but we should look at the good cases as well as the bad. I still don’t understand how South Africa happened. I think experts would say they don’t quite understand either,” he said.
One of the key components of a peaceful transfer of power in South Africa, Wolfowitz pointed out, was Nelson Mandela’s adoption of a Truth and Reconciliation policy that granted civil and criminal perpetrators of the apartheid amnesty if they requested it and offered honest testimonies. That element of serenity and forgiveness and the elimination of violent “score-settling” in South Africa is, according to Wolfowitz, why the country has remained peaceful for nearly two decades. Thus, the removal of autocratic regimes should be done with the “Mandela model” in mind.
“I think what’s happened in Egypt,” Wolfowitz explained, “really does indicate the view that the Arab dictatorships which seem to offer so much stability really aren’t so stable. It shows that Arabs aren’t unusual in not wanting to be free. Wolfowitz commended the youth of Egypt for achieving their aims with technology and joint action. “I think we’re lucky [Egypt] collapsed in such a peaceful way. Those kids, their bravery to go out there . . . they were painting ‘facebook’ on their foreheads instead of wielding weapons.”
Wolfowitz cautioned, however, that Egypt has only just started on its path towards democracy. “What needs to be addressed is justice. In the Middle East, justice has a resonance that democracy doesn’t have. The essence of democracy is equal treatment under the law. But, the law has to be just. That’s the problem in Egypt. A law says that women can testify but their testimony only has half the weight of men’s.”
News headlines proclaim the emergence of Egyptian political parties as hopes for an election mount, but mere pluralism and ballots are no guarantees of peace. A successful democratic regime is about more than just elections. Wolfowitz explained, “Sometimes we make the mistake of using an easy shorthand with democracy . . . that democracy is only about voting. The truth is that voting is only a means to an end of social prosperity, justice, and individual opportunity.”
So how should an American view the current situation in Egypt? Wolfowitz believes the U.S. government remained unreasonably silent. “I think Obama has credentials that would allow him to be a forceful spokesperson for democracy, especially among Muslim,” he asserted. “I’m disappointed that that voice has been silent. The government mistakenly thinks that when dealing with a dictator, [they] have to soft peddle [their] criticism to be able to finish a trade deal or cooperate with them eventually on terrorism. I think we need to be tougher. It means you stop pussy-footing. I think it’s more than just negotiating.”
As violence and unrest spreads into Bahrain and Libya, Wolfowitz is “truly mystified” as to why the United States didn’t voice support for the ousting of a “man as hateful as [Kadafi].” After all, the United States should exercise its influence.
Wolfowitz concluded with an optimistic outlook for the future: “Sometimes the 20th century is referred to as the American century. Sometimes people say the 21st century will the Chinese century. . . . Actually, the 20th century was the bloody century. It’s disturbing to see how optimistic people were at the beginning of the century. Then came the World Wars. It’s only in the last 25 years or so that we’ve seen positive developments in many parts of the. The 20th century was not a good century. . . . I think the 21st century will be the democratic century—one that will continue to require American leadership. We should be cautious to say we’re in a state of decline.”
Cathy Huang ’14 is a freshman in Morse College. Contact her at cathy.huang@yale.edu.