Coffee House Interview: Paul Wolfowitz

Daniel Korski interviews Paul Wolfowitz on Coffee House, The Spectator Blog
By Paul Wolfowitz
Coffee House, The Spectator Blog
Sunday, January 30, 2011

Nobody is as associated with George W Bush's drive to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East as former US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. His role in the Iraq War, and belief that the US should promote democracy in a part of the world better known for authoritarian rulers, remains controversial to this day.

But now that the Middle East is being rocked by pro - democracy protests – as people demand freedom, employment, and an end to tyranny – is this advocate of democracy finally being proven right? And what does he think about the dangers of democratic transitions? Dr Wolfowitz kindly agreed to answer a few questions about democracy and the Middle East

Daniel Korski: The Middle East seems to have been taken over by a democratic spirit not seen before, with Tunisia's Ben Ali forced from power and now Hosni Mubarak looking increasingly vulnerable. But it has obviously put the West in a bit of a bind, as it fears what the new kinds of regimes will bring. Should the West be worried? In many countries, after all, the voice of opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood – and they may take advantage of the events, even if they did not inaugurate and control them initially. Is the price of the Muslim Brotherhood in power worth accepting to set people free?

Paul Wolfowitz: Let's be clear. We didn't set the Tunisian people free. They did it for themselves. We should consider ourselves lucky that the Islamists can't claim any of the credit, but neither can the Western democracies. And the Islamists are certainly hurrying to get into the game. The question now is whether the West can recover from its past inaction in order to be able to have a positive influence on the outcome.

A somewhat similar situation is developing in Egypt, although the Muslim Brotherhood is much stronger there, so the risk of a bad outcome is greater. But there, too, the strength of popular feeling seems to have taken them by surprise and the predominant sentiment in the streets is not strongly Islamist.

DK: President Obama (but also the British government) has been hesitant in his reaction to the events in the Middle East. One Foreign Office minister even said the key for the UK was stability. In your view, should Western governments stand on the sidelines or offer more encouragement to the protesters and their demand for freedom?

PW: With so much at stake, it is a mistake to be sitting on the sidelines. Western governments can be a positive force on behalf of genuine freedom and against attempts to impose a new kind of tyranny of the Islamist variety. But we can't do that if we are seen as propping up a hated tyrant, or worse, encouraging the kind of bloody crackdown that could at best produce an artificial "stability" for a relatively short period of time. The possibility of a bad outcome is very real, particularly because we did nothing to encourage more evolutionary change earlier, but I believe we have a better chance of a good outcome if we support positive change than if we support the status quo.

DK: A few years ago you talked about "the power of the democratic idea". Since your time in office, however, US support for democracy - promotion has been on the wane, both rhetorically and financially, while many worry that the West cannot afford to talk so loudly about its values, as we've become reliant on non - democratic regimes such as China. What place do you think democracy - promotion should take – in our foreign policy and aid programmes – and how do we deal with the power that non - democratic but powerful investors like China have e.g in Sub - Saharan Africa?

PW: I've been involved with democratic transitions for several decades, going back to the remarkable changes that took place in East Asia in the 1980's – in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan – followed by the incredible changes in Central and Eastern Europe and even, for a time, in Ukraine and Russia itself. That period also saw the demise of most of the right - wing military dictatorships in Latin America. Then came another wave in places as different as South Africa and Indonesia and Serbia. Few of these countries would qualify as Westminster - style democracies, but most are far better off as a result of these democratic transitions, and so are we. Even though we often have to do business with undemocratic regimes – and even though some of those regimes do deliver economic progress for their people – it is a mistake to retreat from supporting democratic reform.

DK: Many of the protesters in Tunis and Cairo – and more of their international supporters – are clear that today's events are unrelated to the Iraq War and in fact represent a different paradigm, namely one of endogenous democratic change. But what in your view is the link between the invasion of Iraq and the events in the Middle East today?

PW: We did not go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan to promote democracy, but rather to remove regimes that were dangerous to us and to the world. Having done that, we have attempted to enable the Iraqi and Afghan people to enjoy the benefits of free and representative government. Those efforts have enjoyed mixed success, but we would have done worse – and been much more deserving of criticism – had we attempted to reimpose some new dictator. So far, Tunisia and Egypt seem to be following the paradigm of the long list of countries I mentioned earlier, from the Philippines and Chile to Indonesia and Georgia. They are proud, and rightly so, that they have had no help from the outside. Tragically, Tunisia probably enjoyed better conditions for a peaceful democratic transition than any other Arab country, but Bin Ali suppressed that possibility ruthlessly. Hopefully now Tunisia will continue to demonstrate in a positive way that Arabs too can progress through democratic reform.

DK: The on - folding events in the Middle East would seem to suggest that the premise of your policies – that people in the region yearn for freedom – was right, but the means, military power, were costly, deadly and, some would say, wrong. Did you pick the right means and allies (including in Washington) to carry out the policy of promoting democracy in the region?

PW: It is wrong to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to promote democracy. Whether right or wrong, they were fought to protect ourselves and others from dangerous regimes, but once those regimes were removed we could not reimpose dictators. At the same time, we did believe that peaceful democratic change, of the kind I've mentioned earlier, could help to change the conditions in the Middle East that were breeding terrorists and support for terrorism That is why President Bush spoke strongly, as for example in London in November 2003, that "Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.” Unfortunately, in his second term President Bush seemed to retreat from pursuing his "freedom agenda"and President Obama has retreated further. But that earlier analysis of the false stability brought by tyranny seems even more accurate today.

DK: You have previously rejected the label "neoconservative" and, in a Washington Post interview some years ago, you said you did not want people to think that you "believe that the military is the solution to most of the world's problems." Yet during your time in office, the role of the US military in promoting democracy was clearly prominent. Looking at the experiences of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think the US needs re - think the role the military plays in large - scale democracy - promoting, nation - building projects?

PW: Support for peaceful reform by the people themselves is the right way to promote democracy, not the use of force. To repeat again, we did not go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq to promote democracy. But when force is used to remove a dangerous or genocidal regime – as happened not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Liberia – we have little choice but to help people to establish some form of representative government. In the very interview that you cite I explained that I believed in an "evolutionary rather than revolutionary" approach to promoting democratic reform and specifically that "Egypt does not have to hold free elections tomorrow, but it could make a start by not throwing prominent human rights activists in jail.” If they had started that kind of reform seven years ago, we might have a happier situation today. We may not like some of the change that is coming, but I still believe, as I said then, that for the Arab world not to change at all is "a formula for eventual catastrophe.”

Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar at AEI.

Egypt 2011 Or Iran 1979?

It’s here in Egypt. There’s lot of hot bubbles on the streets right now. Millions of them are exercising their rights as individual clamoring the ends of 30 year Mubarak’s dictatorship. Advancing social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and internet have been clamp down to stifle the movement. The collapse of Soviet Union does not need Facebook or Twitter to be activated. Not easy, government controlling millions of individual which obviously more unique and smarter. Government loses his grip and this has become the most fear moment with as it stated by Austrian economist Murray Rothbard. Democracy and freedom, the cores of making great country once again being hijacked, particularly I must speak my concern over an uprising of Islamic groups; Muslim Brotherhood Mission and its allies.

And at the same time, following by no wisdom, Obama’s speech since the movement's inception, apparently might alluding empower anti democratic forces group. From what I observe, Obama responded several times from the White House with nothing substance. Mubarak at the other hand, addressing his speech in desperately soothing protesters while promise for power transition until September election. It is not simply of commenting the absolute victory of Egyptians alone, in my opinion, Israel's stakes living side by side within the most brutal regime ever in history of mankind. What happen to Israel and its peace talk? Unfortunately, nobody bother about the little tiny sovereign only democratic country. Don’t they remember the war ends because of Egypt – Israel agreement in 1979? Or they going to scrapped it?

There is no doubt that peoples get excited watching all these progress especially Malaysians. Somehow, we are so determined to emulate what Egyptians does to remove BN’s government from its mandate right away. Socialists perhaps views the rising differently as ‘peoples’, but beyond conventional observation, I think a person, an individual plays much important role regardless majority or minority camps, as Hayek’s famously wrote on individualism and economic order analysis the society to a situation is consisting of several independent persons. Hence, according to him “re1atíonship between actions and since the actions of one person must necessarily take place successively in time” It plainly tells us a person as individual is agent for purposeful action. I personally believe liberty is much closely connected with person or individual. I feel free of coercion from all sources.

Like democracy fans extolling often; Tyrant falls, supplanted by vibrant democratic government and its sort of form in cycles? Symbolically, are they going blaming United States of America for intervenes their country to some extent the whole process as it naturally inevitable? They hates America so much not because of freedom which Egyptians also seeking for, but it's because of America say one thing and do another. They miss out some very points over there. If Mubarak steps down, I’m afraid Muslim Brotherhood Mission would seize its power in government. They therefore finally govern alongside their brothers and sisters. Who are their brothers and sisters? Hamas rules in Palestine, Hezbollah rules in Southern Lebanon. Al Qaeda? Subsequently, Middle East is anticipating major war with democracy and freedom as I’m pretty sure. Iranian rapidly dominates the agendas of the region when these whole event develops since Tunisia's revolution and I believe more is coming - has merely reminiscence the triumph of Iranian Revolution in 1979. Now I’m thinking that oldest Islamic movement in the region being motivated by the current uprising. Excellent opportunity to grab power, don’t you think? In addition, an estimated three dozen Islamist militants reportedly escaped from an Egyptian prison on Sunday amid the chaos that has enveloped the country.

A recent conversation with British historian Bernard Lewis, he said it [Egypt revolt] is a popular revolt rather than democratic revolt. It is mainly due to economic, too bad. This has brought me to second point, economic turmoil. In Egypt, poverty is very real to understand with 85 million lives for $2 per day. Corruption and private property also very badly addressed by the government. So, the other reasons on why the Egyptians revolt mainly because of outmoded economy and discouraging reality especially by the young. The government must pursue economic freedom and its lasting progress would not benefit small interest, in fact at large.

Skeptics And Thermostats

By William Easterly | Published January 26, 2011

Many have suffered from being in a building where there was a centralized thermostat for the whole building (or the whole floor), with the predictable result that some rooms are way too hot or way too cold. (Sounds like a metaphor, watch for it…)

Things were even more extreme in the former Soviet Union, where there were centralized heating plants for a whole city, and the hot air would then be pumped out to individual homes and offices. So basically the whole city had one centralized thermostat.

Krasnoyarsk thermal power station Number 1 in Siberia. In 2008 during winter temperatures of -4 degrees, a burst pipeline at this station cut off central heat for days for some 10,000 people.

What a nice and simple solution there is: give each room its own thermostat. First, there is automatic adjustment from the thermostat to keep it from being too hot or too cold. Second, the people in the room at any one moment can choose to adjust the thermostat according to their preferences.

A thermostat is a very simple knowledge processing device. So this is a great metaphor for (here it comes!) the advantages of decentralized knowledge over centralized knowledge (Hat tip to Adam Martin for the Facebook conversation that sparked this idea).

When skeptics (like me) criticize the uselessness of very aggregated centralized knowledge on “how to do development”, we get labeled nihilists, like we’re saying nobody never knows nothing nowhere no how. But what we’re really saying is that centralized knowledge is an impossible dream for overall economic development, but decentralized knowledge can work very well.

In sum:

1) Skeptics like me are not criticizing ALL knowledge, just saying some types are useful, and others are not. And so the best systems are those that can gather and process decentralized knowledge.

2) Well-functioning markets and democracy give people their own thermostats.

Orange Book In Ignorance

What is the value of Orange Book? Does Orange Book represent real solutions? I don’t think so. I don’t think by transferring subsidies from corporate to the hand of masses is going to be more efficient in allocating resources after what BN has done recklessly for a very long time in government. Unless for the purpose of getting votes, Pakatan Rakyat and its minister in waiting absolutely will do anything necessary to be in Putrajaya. I feel anxious in contrast. Everything is subsidize, who cares, rich and poor, equality in democracy defines socialism! I want less government, I want personal responsibility and I want to demonstrate my reason in satisfying myself. Sadly, where is free market anyway which acknowledge the theme of scarcity? Of course, politicians would definitely say free market policy doesn’t work in market failure. Market inflicts us poorer; market makes us slide into economic crash every ten years.

Yes, keep spending is the impulse here because it’s tells us how insatiable they are when it comes to spending. Spending is really a disgraceful policy because its makes government grows bigger. Citing the book, I read where figures shown cogently and its analyses have been properly and morally blatant. Orange Book is all about spending in deficits. I’m getting bores of Pakatan Rakyat simply put corruption and power abuses as their platform condemning the leakages or outflow illicit money from the country. Are there any other reasons that Pakatan could manifest instead of these ‘real’ political punch issues? Reallocation of subsidies is worse rather than cutting spending, don’t they realize? Government nationalizing the highways, government acquisition over water assets, government providing free Wi Fi, and government is giving RM500 for teachers; nobody ever going to tell me this “I don’t want all these gifts” but ironically many appreciates with “Thanks government for doing this” or better “This is the government all for the people interest” Pakatan is enticing us with money. Pakatan is molding us to be irresponsible and pliant citizens! This is immoral and implausible.

Yet, they still emulate BN’s policies as it inevitably? For too long BN is monstrously in spending and the most laudable countering policy, Pakatan must reduce its spending! If BN is creating more departments, then Pakatan must begin to perish this entire fat department! If BN is fixing the prices, then Pakatan must unfix the prices. If BN is controlling means of production, then Pakatan must do in contrast! If BN is manipulating interest rates, then Pakatan must let the market fixing its rates. What is so hard to implement after all?

Again, I really don’t like this Orange Book. I personally oppose several of its inimical agenda. As I said in earlier post, cutting spending is a must in making limited role of government. We must cut spending in all Ministries, abolishing all subsidies (including petrol, sugar etc), corporate welfare types, repealing unproductive regulations and releasing inefficient services to the private sectors. Save the money will bring greater investment efficiently correspond with market interest rates. It’s all for Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) which I propounded. For an instance, simple but not easy task for spending cuts in higher education, no further grants and annual allocation for established national higher institutions namely USM, UM, UKM, UTM and UPM. Privatize and be independent from the government. What am I going to do with student loans? Surrender it back to universities (giving loans only to the needy) to decide with its exclusive autonomy. Let them determine the interest rates for pay back. My proposal is to go out there to the market and developing your competitive edge. Do manage your annual student intakes without government intervention. It’s assuming the universities to earn reputation assiduously, or perhaps, this satisfy directly the stakeholders and I believe the country shall benefit with what they produce.

I wonder, I need third force to run all this lofty goals resisting Pakatan's temptation policies. A Tea Party Movement (Malaysia) perhaps? Or civil liberties movement whose claims themselves different? For certain, we need to do some reassessment to ensure government return to its small size. A government must pursue for strong individual character, respecting the rule of law and free society.