Balancing democratic demands within the limitations of Liberalism

As a professor myself, I like to take every opportunity to put on my academic hat, to reflect broadly on the issues of the day. So this afternoon, I want to talk about an idea -- an idea that has defined the modern era since the dawn of the Enlightenment, an idea that has now captured the imagination of a majority of humanity, and made our world more secure as a result, so that idea is liberal democracy.

What do I mean by "liberal" democracy? Well, first of all, I mean capital "L" in Liberal, as in Liberalism, the theory of politics that took shape in the minds of Englishmen like Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, and even a Scot or two, like Adam Smith. The ideas of Liberalism were, of course, later refined and applied and written into the American Constitution by men like Hamilton, and Jefferson and Madison. And all of these individuals were trying, in their own way, to solve one of history's oldest quandaries: How can individuals with different interests, and different backgrounds, and different religious beliefs, live together peacefully and avoid the evil extremes of politics: civil war and tyranny, or as they would have said, the state of nature or the oppression of the state?

In their answer to this question, the theorists of Liberalism transformed politics forever. They declared that all human beings possessed equal dignity and certain natural rights -- among these, the right to live in liberty, to enjoy security, to own property and to worship as they pleased. These universal rights, established and embodied in institutions and enshrined in law, would then establish the principled limits on state power. But that was not all. They had another equally bold idea: For government to be truly legitimate, they argued, it had to be blessed by the consent of the governed.

Now, those were truly revolutionary ideas, and not surprisingly, they inspired revolutions. You made yours here in Britain in 1688. We made ours, after a few false starts, in 1776 and 1789. And I do not, therefore, mean to imply that there is only one model of liberal democracy. There is not. Even two countries as similar as Britain and the United States embraced liberal democracy on our own terms, according to our own traditions and our cultures and our experiences. That has been the case for every country and every people that has begun the modest quest for justice and freedom -- whether it was France in 1789; or Germany and Japan after World War II; or nations across Asia, and Africa, and Latin America during these past decades; or in countries like Ukraine, and Afghanistan, and Iraq today.

The appeal of liberal democracy is desirable, but its progress has not been even nor inevitable and there's a reason for that. The challenge of liberal democracy is always two-fold: to ensure majority rule and to respect minority rights, to strengthen communities and to liberate individuals, to empower government and to limit that power at the same time. And for societies accustomed to thinking in zero-sum terms, or for diverse communities that have never shared power among themselves, liberal democracy can seem difficult and frustrating and even threatening, and that feeling is entirely understandable.

Too often, we forget how long and hard liberal democracy has been for us. At times in our history and cities like Blackburn and Birmingham for that matter, the challenge of liberal democracy seemed so severe that it would split societies in two.

Once the cotton business moved out of this city, inequality and alienation were so rampant that many thought a revolution was not just likely, but inevitable. In my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, the legacy and the birthmark of slavery persisted for a century in the brutal and dehumanizing form of segregation. I spent the first 13 years of my life without a white classmate. It was when we moved to Denver, Colorado, that I had my first white classmate. And one Sunday morning in 1963, four little girls, including my good friend Denise McNair, were murdered in church by a terrorist bomb.

So even today, we know that we are still wrestling with the two-fold challenges of liberal democracy. Consider, for example, our efforts to strengthen national security and to protect civil liberties at the same time. In the attacks of 9/11 or 7/7 here in Britain, the United States and Britain saw the true threat of global terrorism. No matter of just police work of course, because if we wait for terrorists to attack, then 3,000 people die on one September morning or dozens are murdered on their commute to work. This forces us to think anew about how we will keep our societies both open and safe at the same time and that is no easy task, and we're all finding our own solutions within our own democratic systems ...

I know that there is a lot concern in Britain as well as in Europe and in other parts of the world, that the United States is not adequately guaranteeing both our need for security and our respect for the law. We in America welcome the free exchange of opinions with our allies about this issue, especially here in place like Britain. But I also want to say that no one should ever doubt America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. President Bush has stated unequivocally, as have I that the United States is a nation of laws and we do not tolerate any American, at home or abroad, engaging in acts of torture. We also have no desire to be the world’s jailer. We want the terrorists that we captured to stand trial for their crimes. But we also recognize that we are fighting a new kind of war, and that our citizens will judge us harshly if we release a captured terrorist before we are absolutely certain that he does not possess information that could prevent a future attack, or even worst, if we meet that terrorist again on the battlefield.

Now, these difficult issues, still for us affirm the value of liberal democracy. But from our present and past experience, we know that liberal democracy is no panacea. It is a living regime, a never-ending conversation, a perpetual struggle to balance democratic demands within the limitations of Liberalism. This is genuine liberal democracy and this is its genius, its flexibility and its dynamism, how it helps diverse societies and diverse peoples reconcile their differences peacefully. Even for mature liberal democracies like ours, with centuries of experience, these balancing acts are often painstaking and time-consuming and frustrating. So when we talk about young democracies, like those emerging in the Broader Middle East today, we must do so with great humility and with great patience and with great sympathy for their historic undertaking.

Too often, I think, we forget this perspective. Recent elections in places like Egypt and the Palestinian territories -- the freest by far in both of those places -- have led some to argue that our policy of supporting democratic change in this region is creating not liberal democracy, but illiberal democracy: elected governments that view no inherent limitations to state power. Some American and European commentators even argue that democracy is impossible in the Middle East, and that perhaps it should not be tried for fear of its consequences in destabilizing the Middle East. Now, this criticism seems to assume that our support for democratic reform in the Middle East is disrupting somehow a stable status quo there. But do we really think that this was the case?

Read on. (Secretary Rice's Remarks at BBC Today-Chatham House Lecture, Ewood Park, Blackburn, United Kingdom on 31 March 2006)

Dr Rice interviewed by RCTI TV Indonesia

RCTI TV: Secretary Rice, first question I would like to ask, there is a perception here from some people that your main agenda here in Indonesia this time is to secure, to make sure that the Cepu oil block in the border of Central and East Java does not fall into the hands of US competitors, meaning that it remains in the hands of energy company ExxonMobil. How do you respond to that?

Dr Rice: Well, this is a private matter. The United States isn't involved in the investment decisions of its companies. The deal is done. It was done before I arrived and I think it shows that Indonesia is open for private investment and that it's an investment climate in which people are investing. But our primary -- my primary goal for being here is to talk about the tremendous partnership that Indonesia and the United States are developing, about Indonesia's extraordinary march to democracy, about the -- a place that I think we feel very comfortable because like Indonesia, the United States is a place of great diversity, cultural, religious, ethnic. And so that's why I'm here and it's been for me an extraordinary trip.

But isn't it true that one of the main pillars of U.S. foreign policy is to secure energy resources from abroad, meaning to ensure that demand for oil in the United States, which continues to grow and I quote a National Energy Policy Development Group report which states that by 2020, you expect U.S. dependence on oil to reach some 66 percent. Doesn't that conclude for some people that you do need to secure those foreign oil resources?

Well, we can't really secure foreign oil resources. It's not how energy markets work. It is a market and people will sell their oil in the market and mark the -- oil will get a certain price, depending on supply and demand. And I think it's really not -- it's not possible and it's a way that sometimes even other countries think about it -- we'll secure that market and we'll secure that market.

The fact that so many US oil companies now operate in Indonesia and really control really major reserves.

Well, Indonesia has had American and other investments for quite a long time and the purpose is to make Indonesian oil fields capable of producing oil, which then benefits Indonesia, but also benefits the global market. Foreign investment in oil is simply for the purpose of getting the best technology, getting the best production out of those fields, because all of the world needs energy resources, not just the United States, but Indonesia, China, India. These are all countries that are growing economically and you need energy resources.

In fact, the President has -- President Bush has made clear that the United States believes that our great task is to actually diversify our energy supply and that is why the United States is spending under the President's new energy plan, resources to try and improve the capability of bio diversity -- of bio energy through ethanol and through the use of grasses to produce bio fuels. We are looking at nuclear energy as a way to diversify our energy supply. So yes, we need oil as everyone needs oil. But we also are diversifying our energy supply. And you -- I just want to repeat, you cannot control an energy supply. Energy is a world market and the price is set by supply and demand.

Okay. Now moving on to the issue of Palestine, you canceled your previously scheduled visit to Indonesia when Prime Minister Sharon was ill. Do you think that sends a message to Indonesians that when it comes to shove and push, the US will ultimately side with Israel when it comes to interest between Palestine and Israel?

Well, in fact, I was unable to come here. I'm here now. And I've been here and enjoyed my visit very much. But sometimes friends need to understand that there are other demands and this time, at that time, the demand was that there were concerns about the Middle East. I've been very actively involved in trying to help to create a two-state solution -- something that President Bush believes very strongly in. In order to do that, we need to work with the Palestinians, we need to work with Israelis. And I think everybody wants the United States to be active in the Middle East peace process. And sometimes when there are problems in the Middle East, it demands the attention of the American Secretary of State and I think people understand that.

In your meeting with Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda yesterday there as a proposal that Indonesians and mainly other Muslim countries have asked that whether the United States would be more willing to receive Hamas as the ruling government in Palestine, if it were to act more realistically. How have you responded to calls like that?

Well, the situation with Hamas is as follows. Hamas was elected in an election for which we congratulated the Palestinian people. But Hamas now needs to make a strategic choice and it's not just the demand of the United States, this is -- these are requirements that were set by the Quartet. The Quartet being the guardian of the roadmap, the United States, the EU, the UN and Russia that you can't have a peace process if one party does not accept the right of the other party to exist. You can't have a peace process if one party is not committed to peace and continues to use violence. And so our appeal would be to any Palestinian government that they would accept those responsibilities of governing.

Everyone knows that for the United States Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization, as it has for the European Union. But were Hamas to make a strategic choice and renounce violence and recognize the right of Israel to exist. I think the responsibility to govern would be easier and they would find an international community ready to support a Palestinian government, so devoted to peace.

Secretary Rice, considering so-called radical Islamic movement in Indonesia, which you would obviously consider as a threat to U.S. interests, as well as Indonesian maybe, how far would the US go in neutralizing these elements that are anti-American in Indonesia?

Well, let me start with -- to whom they're a threat. They are a threat to all of us. But Indonesians have felt that threat most directly in the bombings in Bali and bombings in Jakarta. Indonesians, Muslims around the world have died just as have other innocent people because of this particular extremist element that is determined, we believe, to subvert the peaceful purposes and the peaceful doctrines of Islam. So how far will we go to stop them? I think we all have to be united in making certain that these terrorists cannot take innocent life. But the way that we do that is through cooperation with governments around the world that also want to fight terrorism which is why the United States has such a strong counterterrorism program and such strong counterterrorism work with the Government of Indonesia.

Read on (Jakarta, Indonesia on 15 March 2006)

Our Opportunity With India

The week before last President Bush concluded a historic agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation with India, a rising democratic power in a dynamic Asia. This agreement is a strategic achievement: It will strengthen international security. It will enhance energy security and environmental protection. It will foster economic and technological development. And it will help transform the partnership between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracy.

First, our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international nonproliferation regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency would gain access to India's civilian nuclear program that it currently does not have. Recognizing this, the IAEA's director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has joined leaders in France and the United Kingdom to welcome our agreement. He called it "a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety."

Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique. India is a democracy, where citizens of many ethnicities and faiths cooperate in peace and freedom. India's civilian government functions transparently and accountably. It is fighting terrorism and extremism, and it has a 30-year record of responsible behavior on nonproliferation matters.

Aspiring proliferators such as North Korea or Iran may seek to draw connections between themselves and India, but their rhetoric rings hollow. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism that has violated its own commitments and is defying the international community's efforts to contain its nuclear ambitions. North Korea, the least transparent country in the world, threatens its neighbors and proliferates weapons. There is simply no comparison between the Iranian or North Korean regimes and India.

The world has known for some time that India has nuclear weapons, but our agreement will not enhance its capacity to make more. Under the agreement, India will separate its civilian and military nuclear programs for the first time. It will place two-thirds of its existing reactors, and about 65 percent of its generating power, under permanent safeguards, with international verification -- again, for the first time ever. This same transparent oversight will also apply to all of India's future civilian reactors, both thermal and breeder. Our sale of nuclear material or technology would benefit only India's civilian reactors, which would also be eligible for international cooperation from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Second, our agreement is good for energy security. India, a nation of a billion people, has a massive appetite for energy to meet its growing development needs. Civilian nuclear energy will make it less reliant on unstable sources of oil and gas. Our agreement will allow India to contribute to and share in the advanced technology that is needed for the future development of nuclear energy. And because nuclear energy is cleaner than fossil fuels, our agreement will also benefit the environment. A threefold increase in Indian nuclear capacity by 2015 would reduce India's projected annual CO2emissions by more than 170 million tons, about the current total emissions of the Netherlands.

Third, our agreement is good for American jobs, because it opens the door to civilian nuclear trade and cooperation between our nations. India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If U.S. companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers. We plan to expand our civilian nuclear partnership to research and development, drawing on India's technological expertise to promote a global renaissance in safe and clean nuclear power.

Finally, our civilian nuclear agreement is an essential step toward our goal of transforming America's partnership with India. For too long during the past century, differences over domestic policies and international purposes kept India and the United States estranged. But with the end of the Cold War, the rise of the global economy and changing demographics in both of our countries, new opportunities have arisen for a partnership between our two great democracies. As President Bush said in New Delhi this month, "India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty."

Read on. (Secretary Rice's Op-Ed, The Washington Post, USA. 13 March 2006.)