Even the Tiny Republic of Togo…
..requires U.S. intervention in the name of democracy, in the world of Peter Beinart's tough-lib. New Republic. In this article by Steven Kosnar, we are told
President Bush still needs to prove to the world that the chimes of freedom that rang so vociferously during his inaugural deserve to be heard not only in strategically important countries like Iraq but in smaller, poverty-stricken countries like Togo as well. In his inaugural address two weeks ago, he said: "The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side." It would appear we are not quite ready to walk the walk. Our cautious response to the situation in Togo--in effect to wait for others to do something about it--raises the question of whether President Bush's call for global freedom is subject to a global test.
The "situation," by the way, is that a long-term (elected, in highly questionable elections) strongman died, and power was handed to his son through military strongarming and a quick rewriting of the Tongolese constitution. And it's up to the U.S., says Kosnar, to "forthrightly condemn" the situation. We also should be
threatening sanctions and offering logistical support for eventual elections. The United States could also be offering to lead the EU, AU, and ECOWAS in helping devise a power-sharing arrangement between the country's two ethnic groups.
The U.S. government: dedicated in spirit and action to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens, and, of course, to taking a bold lead in ensuring peace between the Ewe and the Kabre.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kudos for intorducing a link to TNR with "Even the..."
If we don't invade Togo, how can we be sure that the Saudis will continue to hold elections?
thoreau
if the US intervenes in EVERY imagianble situation overseas...why, that is OVER-REACH
abd if we fail to intervene in any, where arguably some of the same criteria would apply as in situations where we did intervene...why, that is "inconsistency" (UNDER-REACH?)
...and Your point is?
Well I suppose your point is - that except for all the situations in the past, like the Cold War, where an active foreign policy turned out to be prescient, prudent and visionary - you take a principalled opposition to active foreign policies - particularly because you have an aesthetic distaste for inconsistency...except for all the exceptions.
Andrew, you took my post way too seriously.
Still, I'll take your post seriously, and observe a few things:
1) I don't recall using inconsistency as a primary argument against the invasion of Iraq.
2) The problem with inconsistency is not so much the inconsistency itself. But when somebody says "We should invade country X because it satisfies criterion Y", and then it turns out that several other countries also satisfy criterion Y, it's worth asking what makes X so special. And there may very well be perfectly good reasons why X is special.
But we still shouldn't let people get off easy by only invoking Y as their justification.
thoreau
Among adults, can commesense parameters of Cost-and -Return ratios not be ASSUMED? Does anyone really need to explain to you, once more AND IN ANSWER TO ONE OF YOUR RHETORICAL QUERIES, why they don't think it is a good idea to invade mainland China (or even Iran or North Korea) while still seeing both a moral justification, and a real national interest, in committing to the democratic transformation of Iraq.
Come on ! Be honest about it! How many times have you posted the rhetorical challenge "So WHY don't we invade Russia? of Togoland?" with an air of having scored some really central point?
OK let this serve as criterion Z: because either the cost is prohibitive, or the return is trivial. Got it? Straight on that now?
Andrew, if you think I was trying to make a serious point when I suggested we invade Togo then you have to learn a thing or two about sarcasm.
So the US government shouldn't care about "peace between the Ewe and the Kabre" or anyone else outside its borders? I imagine that such callous isolationism would do wonders for protecting the right to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens" in the long run, yup ...
This post seems motivated by nothing more than the belief that Togo just isn't worth giving a damn about, what with being a poor country in a faraway region of which most Americans know nothing. Doherty makes the mistake of assuming that because he's an insular person, all those regimes of strategic interest to America are insular as well. What makes this attitude so incredibly stupid is that many other countries about which America does care about - if only for their oil - are paying close attention to how it reacts to the Togolese coup d'etat, and they stand to learn the wrong lessons from American indifference on this occasion, lessons every single American stands to be paying over the odds down the road in terms of yet higher oil prices, yet more terrorism and reduced economic growth.
Abiola Lapite,
There's almost 200 countries out there. Far too many of them are run by dictatorships. If we sent troops _every_ time a dictator ran a country, we would always be at war. We have to pick our battles.
Maybe the best plan is to let current dictators be unless they threaten us and to intervine when new dictators try to take over. Then we stop a dictatorship before it consolidates its power. I think Togo fits this description.
Well, we could at least get in the habit of saying something like
"Hey, you - what's your name again?
Oh, right: 'Togo.'
Hey Togo!
We see you over there, being all dictatorial'n'stuff.
Now, look, we got a list.
And you're on it.
It's a long list, yeah - hundreds of countries out there, all too many of 'em run by primitive gangsters. Like yours.
And we don't really have time, money, or inclination to just run around fixing everyone else's problems all day every day.
But we see you, we know what's going on over there, and how much it must suck for the average "Togo-an." (Togo-ite? Togonian?)
And you never know when we just might do something about it.
Or enable some 3rd party to do something about it.
So: watch your backs, you corny little third-rate dictator punk-ass bitch mutherfucks.
Love,
America"
And just make statements like that Official State Department Rhetoric. (Yeah, we'd have to translate it into bloviating diplomat-speak.)
But here's the thing: talk is cheap.
It wouldn't cost the U.S. one thin dime of taxpayers' money to Officially Diss the thugtards who are currently fucking over the faraway land of Togo.
And we would, thereby, lend some moral support to the more libertarian-leaning "Togo-ans."
How would any of that be bad?
What I am saying thoreau, is that the sarcasm never had much value as entertainment...and none at all now. And yeah, to suppose you were trying to make a point was reasonable on a political bog...no?
thoreau at February 10, 2005 06:30 PM
...it's worth asking what makes X so special...
black gold, texas tea
unless Togo does a Jed Clampett
no american style democracy will be forthcoming.
jtuf at February 10, 2005 11:18 PM
...we would always be at war. We have to pick our battles.
we are currently in a state of perpetual war:
drug war / war on terror = culture wars!!!
common sense does not seem to be a prerequisite for public service, sad.