By a vote of 64 to 34, the United States Senate passed the first federal ban on an abortion procedure since the “Roe v. Wade” decision in 1973.  The House had previously passed the bill, so on 5 November 2003, President Bush signed the legislation.  It is indeed a historic watershed in American history.  Allow me to propose some strategic thoughts:

• First, the law bans one of the most horrific medical procedures ever devised.  The procedure, medically called “dilatation and extraction,” involves the partial delivery of the child, then crushing the child’s skull and the literal sucking out of the child’s brains.  For this reason the procedure has been correctly labeled “partial birth abortion.”  (Recent polls show 70% of Americans support ending of this procedure.)  It is normally performed in the second and sometimes third trimesters of the pregnancy.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were about 2,000 such abortions in 2000, out of 1.3 million performed in the US.  It is very difficult for me to see how anyone could defend such a gruesome procedure.  Former President Clinton had twice vetoed similar legislation.  But this law now marks a decisive change in the national debate over abortion.  Other anti-abortion legislation still awaiting congressional action would lace additional restrictions on abortion:  the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (known as “Laci and Conner’s Law”) and the Informed Choice Act, which would allow federal dollars to be used to place ultra-sound equipment in pregnancy resource centers around the nation.  As President Bush argued in his address after signing the legislation:  “The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer’s brief can make them seem otherwise.  By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak.”  He went on, “The right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life.” 

• Second, will the legislation stand Supreme Court scrutiny?  The law does address the issues raised by the Supreme Court in “Stenberg v. Carhart.”  It tightens the definition of the procedure demonstrating that it is never medically necessary:  The law ends any procedure as “performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.”  But the challenge of the pro-abortion forces will be formidable and they are willing to spend large amounts of money doing so.  President Bush has argued that “the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts.”  Those who do not want this law to stand will argue that the language of the law could be applied more broadly than simply partial birth abortion.  The “Stenberg v. Carhart” case in Nebraska was struck down partially on the basis of imprecise language.  This will be the argument used in this law.  There is no question that this law will end up where Roe v. Wade began—in the Supreme Court, where we will have the judiciary once again determining the issues of life and death of the unborn life.

• Finally, this law demonstrates how divided the US really is.  One example of this division is how many processed the photo op at the law’s signing.  Critics point out that the President was surrounded, as he signed the legislation, by a bevy of white men wearing dark suits and smiles.  Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups hailed this photo as one of their most powerful weapons as they seek to overturn the new law.  There is no question that this was a bad political decision.  As Judie Brown, president of the American Life League argued, “Women are mothers, Women have babies.  Women should have been in the picture.”  I cannot defend this photo op; it was a bad political judgment.  Since women surveyed do not support partial birth abortion, women should have been in the photo.  This legislation and this photo op show once again how divided this nation really is.  We are divided by region, by race and by gender.  The cultural and ethical issues that dominate our nation create a cleavage that is getting wider.  In the words of James Davison Hunter, it is “orthodox versus progressive.”  It is those who believe there is a transcendent God who has revealed Himself to us versus those who believe that self is the ultimate authority.  That division is more pronounced now than ever! 

See The Economist (25 October 2003), pp. 28-30; Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times (9 November 2003) and “Washington Update” (5 November 2003).

Back to top

DEMOCRACY, IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST

Last week, President Bush made a bold appeal that all nations of the Middle East should embrace democracy, arguing that this moment in history resembled the birth of freedom in Germany and Japan after World War II.  This is a laudable goal and one we all trust will occur.  However, there are at least two major risks in trying to bring about radical change in Islamic countries of the Middle East.

• First, the risk of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic.  If a democratic political culture is not established, the feuding tribal, ethnic, religious groups and militias will choose violence, not the ballot box, to resolve their differences.  Instead of a democratic order, there will be political and social chaos.  As one Arab diplomat commented, “. . . the danger is that the center implodes in a few years because of the presence of Sunni factions or militias.  This would be absolutely disastrous for the region.”  Should the US fail in its effort to remake Iraq, it could create a perception of American weakness that would embolden the radical elements of the region, whether in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Iran.

• Second, as Steven Weisman has written, the second risk is in the “be careful what you ask for” category.  “The worry is that democracy in the Middle East might empower the very forces that the United States opposes, like Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.”  Something similar happened in Iran in the late 1980s when President Carter demanded that the Shah of Iran open up his political system and guarantee more human rights.  The result was Ayatollah Khomeini.  Also, there really is no democratic tradition in the Arab world.  In fact, in the past, the US and other nations of the world have found it much easier to deal with dictators and oil-rich potentates than politicians worried about re-election.  Both Bahrain and Kuwait have made strides toward democratic institutions, including giving women the right to vote.  But it has been slow and motivated more by joining the world trading and investment networks than pressure from the US.  So, unless a stable political culture is built first, elections in countries where extremist groups are accustomed to getting their way by force or intimidation pose great risks.  A requirement for democracy is a political culture where all groups are willing to participate peacefully.  In addition, that political culture must also foster moderate groups, nongovernmental organizations, a free press and an unfettered business environment.  Few countries of the Middle East today have these characteristics.

• There is a third factor, especially as it relates to Iraq, and that is humiliation.  As Tom Friedman recently pointed out, many Iraqis feel humiliated that they did not liberate themselves, and America’s presence reminds them of that.  In addition, entire tribes feel embarrassed that they supported the US invasion and now are out of power.  As Friedman comments, “Tap into people’s dignity and they will do anything for you.  Ignore it, and they won’t lift a finger.”  As one Pakistani argued, the US needs a strategy of “dehumiliation and re-dignification.”  “The more we empower Iraqis, the less humiliated they feel, the more time we will have to help them and the less they will need our help.” 

See Friedman’s comments in the New York Times (9 November 2003) and Weisman’s article in the same issue.

Back to top

CHINA AND MANNED SPACE FLIGHTS

In mid-October, China launched “Shenzhou 5” (which means “divine vessel”) into space carrying China’s first astronaut.  This is no small feat.  China is, after all, only the third country to put a man in space, after Russia and America.  Yet, it still remains a poor nation.  China has long had a commercial and military space program that has already launched more than 70 satellites.  In the words of The Economist, this feat “will, China hopes, also advertise the reliability of its commercial satellite launch services . . . ; strengthen its claim to a seat at any future space-negotiation table; reinforce its influence in Asia; and through such heavenly exploits, put China firmly on the terrestrial great-power map.”  How should we think about this truly momentous development?

• First, it does represent something rather wasteful for China.  More costly efforts are planned, including eventually a moon landing and even a space station of its own.  For a nation with increasingly serious problems like AIDS and the recent SARS epidemic, this makes little sense.

• Second, this event has major military implications.  The rockets China’s space program uses are virtually indistinguishable from the intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.  China continues to modernize its nuclear force, demonstrating that it can release more than one satellite from a single rocket, giving it the capability to put multiple warheads on a single missile should it choose to do so.  China is no longer a sleeping giant nor is it a paper tiger.  It is aggressively pursuing its desire to be regarded as a world power.  Its entrance into manned space flights is a major step toward this goal. 

See The Economist (18 October 2003), pp. 11, 39-40.

Back to top