Democratic Vanguardism Modernity, Intervention, and the making of the Bush Doctrine Michael Harland A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Department of History University of Canterbury 2013 For Francine Contents Acknowledgements 1 Abstract 3 Introduction 4 1. America at the Vanguard: Democracy Promotion and the Bush Doctrine 16 2. Assessing History’s End: Thymos and the Post-Historic Life 37 3. The Exceptional Nation: Power, Principle and American Foreign Policy 55 4. The “Crisis” of Liberal Modernity: Neoconservatism, Relativism and Republican Virtue 84 5. An “Intoxicating Moment:” The Rise of Democratic Globalism 123 6. The Perfect Storm: September 11 and the coming of the Bush Doctrine 159 Conclusion 199 Bibliography 221 1 Acknowledgements Over the three years I spent researching and writing this thesis, I have received valuable advice and support from a number of individuals and organisations. My supervisors, Peter Field and Jeremy Moses, were exemplary. As my senior supervisor, Peter provided a model of a consummate historian – lively, probing, and passionate about the past. His detailed reading of my work helped to hone the thesis significantly. Peter also allowed me to use his office while he was on sabbatical in 2009. With a library of over six hundred books, the space proved of great use to an aspiring scholar. Jeremy Moses, meanwhile, served as the co-supervisor for this thesis. His research on the connections between liberal internationalist theory and armed intervention provided much stimulus for this study. Our discussions on the present trajectory of American foreign policy reminded me of the continuing pertinence of my dissertation topic. Of course, collegial support does not end with one’s supervisors. This thesis has benefitted in a numerous ways as a result of the friendship, critique and scholarship of fellow students. Hannah Benbow read and commented on the early chapters of this work. Her eye for a mixed metaphor or wordy sentence helped eliminate the awkward turns of phrase that inevitably peppered rough drafts. James Illston, Tadashi Iwami, Christian Kundig and Ben Nwosu likewise offered insightful feedback on drafts at various stages. I have also benefitted from my conversations on all manner of topics from Nietzsche to nuclear proliferation with J. Jackson Ewing, Eliot Lynch, Colin Robinson and Aiden Warren. Fellow post-graduates at Canterbury, including Rosemary Baird-Williams, Helen Bones, Melinda Brown, Halie McCaffrey, Anna Milne, Allie Stedman, Josh Tait and Gary Whitcher shared the thesis-writing experience during the past three years. 2 It is often said that PhD students become “institutionalised” as they progress; but I have nothing but praise for the institutions which made this thesis possible. In 2009 I received a Ryoichi Sasakawa Young Leader’s Fellowship from Massey University. This fellowship provided a stipend which allowed me to purchase books for research and attend conferences each year. My gratitude goes to Jackie Koenders, Naomi Collins and the Sasakawa scholarship board for their generous support. My department at the University of Canterbury provided a superb environment in which to study. Judy Robinson, in particular, deserves much praise for her hard work in times of administrative tumult. I would also like to thank Chris Dixon and his colleagues in the Department of History at the University of Queensland for hosting me as a postgraduate exchange fellow in August 2012. Portions of this thesis have previously seen the light of day. Sections of chapters one, two and the conclusion appear as the article ‘‘Democratic Vanguardism’: Francis Fukuyama and the Bush Doctrine’ in the Arena Journal. I thank Allison Caddick and Paul James for permission to use this material. I also acknowledge the editors of the Australian Journal of International Affairs and the Australasian Journal of American Studies for allowing me to reproduce work that appeared in short book reviews. The later chapters of this work were composed during the Canterbury earthquakes that began on 4 September 2010. The second in this series of quakes, on 22 February 2011, killed 185 people and caused extensive damage to the city of Christchurch. In a natural disaster, it becomes clear that friends matter all the more. My thanks to Blair Bonnett, Scott Martin, Frances Huisman and Teri Anderson for their camaraderie through some extraordinary times. My parents and brother have also consistently supported me through the highs and lows that thesis students invariably face. But the gratitude I have for my wife, Francine, surpasses them all. 3 Abstract The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 transformed the way in which Americans and their leaders viewed the world. The tragic events of that day helped give rise to a foreign policy strategy commonly referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” At the heart of this doctrine lay a series of propositions about the need to foster liberal democracy as the antidote to terrorism. President George W. Bush proclaimed in a variety of addresses that democracy now represented the “single surviving model” of political life to which all people aspired. In the course of making this argument, President Bush seemed to relate his policies to an overarching “teleology” of progress. This discourse implied that the United States might use force to hasten the emergence of liberal norms and institutions in selected states. With a sense of irony, some commentators soon referred to the Bush administration’s position as “Leninist” because of its determination to bring about the so-called “end of history” today. Yet, surprisingly, these critics had little more to add. This thesis is an attempt to assess in greater depth the Bush administration’s claim to comprehend historical eschatology. Developing a concept termed “democratic vanguardism,” this study investigates the idea of liberal modernity, the role of the United States as a force for democracy, and the implications of using military intervention in the service of idealistic ends. It examines disputes among political theorists, public intellectuals and elected statesmen which help to enrich our understanding of the United States’ efforts under President Bush at bending history to its will. 4 Introduction In a speech delivered on 1 June 2002 at West Point military academy in New York State, American President George W. Bush laid out his administration’s vision for a free world. According to the President, “the 20th century ended with a single surviving model of human progress, based on non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women and private property and free speech and equal justice and religious tolerance.” 1 The United States, Bush declared, would “defend the peace that makes all progress possible” by using its power to encourage “free and open societies on every continent.”2 In the context of the “war on terrorism” launched after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, achieving this goal would at times entail the use of armed force. The Bush administration’s subsequent “National Security Strategy of the United States” and a host of contemporary public addresses, together known as the “Bush Doctrine,” reiterated this ostensible connection between the fight against terrorism and the achievement of a wholly democratic globe.3 The Bush Doctrine 1 George W. Bush, "President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point: Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy," (West Point, New York 1 June 2002). 2 Bush, "President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point: Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy." 3 "The National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002," (Washington 17 September 2002). "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 2006," (Washington 16 March 2006). George W. Bush, "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People," (United States Capitol 20 September 2001). George W. Bush, "President Sworn in to Second Term," (United States Capitol 20 January 2005). George W. Bush, "President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East: Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy," (United States Chamber of Commerce 6 November 2003). H. W. Brands, "Presidential Doctrines: An Introduction," Presidential Studies Quarterly 36, no. 1 5 consisted of four pillars. Firstly, the United States would work to consolidate its global pre-eminence and prevent the emergence of a hostile competitor. America had emerged victorious from the Cold War; upholding this hard-won hegemony was now a vital national interest. Secondly, the United States would adopt a policy of “pre- emptive war” against rogue states and their alleged terrorist allies. The events of September 11 demonstrated that America could not contain or accommodate its new enemies. In the future, the best defence would be a strong offence. Thirdly, the Bush administration held that, to protect its citizens, the United States would sometimes need to act unilaterally. Where international agreement could not be found, America would form “coalitions of the willing” to ensure the peace. Finally, the authors of the Bush Doctrine argued that democracy promotion could serve as a weapon in the fight against terrorism. The authoritarian regimes of the Arab Middle East bred violent extremism. Reaching