R. K. Ramazani
Dr. Ramazani, a Middle East specialist, the holder of the Thomas Jefferson Award and the co-editor of two books on Jefferson and the contemporary world, is the Edward R. Stettinius Professor Emeritus of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia. This keynote speech was delivered on June 13, 2011, at a conference on Education and Diplomacy co-sponsored by the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello and the American Academy of Diplomacy.
What was the originating idea behind this conference? The simplest answer is that the ideas of Thomas Jefferson were so far ahead of his time that it is important to explore their relevance to contemporary problems, domestic and foreign. This means that history matters, although we often do not think so: when we want to dismiss an opposite viewpoint, we say, "It's history!"
Nevertheless, today we aim at exploring the nexus between the Jeffersonian ideas of education and diplomacy as they relate to the challenges facing the United States in the world arena. Being familiar with the Middle East, I will suggest at the end of my remarks that the relationship between these two ideas is important to understanding the so-called Arab Spring.
To Jefferson, the education of all American citizens was a great responsibility of a republican government. He drafted a "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" in the House of Burgesses in 1778. The bill failed to pass, but in spite of personal, political, factional and, in his words, "fanatical opposition," he continued to press for public education in Virginia.
As the head of a 21-member commission, he prepared a plan in 1818 for higher education. The commission met in a tavern in Rockfish Gap, some 40 miles from here. The plan led to the establishment of the University of Virginia in 1825, about a year before he died in 1826, and his plan for public education became an object of emulation: in France, for example, Instruction Publique was essentially the same as Jefferson's.
To Jefferson, higher education, like education at any level, should be "liberal." By liberal he meant that institutions of higher learning should aim "to develop the reasoning faculties of our youth, enlarge their minds, cultivate their morals, and instill into them the precepts of virtue and order." Furthermore, they should aim "to form the statesmen, legislators and judges on whom public prosperity and individual happiness depend." Jefferson believed U.S. officials as well as citizens should have a liberal education.
I think Jefferson would be disappointed to see the sorry quality of education in our country today. About 60-85 percent of young adults cannot find Iraq on a map, and few can identify any world leader. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan complained about the want of quality education in America on May 26, 2010, in these words: "We have not been compelled to meet our global neighbors on their own terms and learn about their histories, values and viewpoints. I am worried that in this interconnected world, our country risks to be disconnected from the contributions of other countries and cultures."
He was right to worry. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without adequate knowledge of their histories and cultures, and we are not sufficiently informed about the Libyan rebels whom we are trying to support today.
Two former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker III, also point out the need to know the culture and history of other nations. With an eye to the current Arab uprisings, for example, they recommended on April 7, 2011, that "we should examine the circumstances in each country in terms of its specific conditions and seek to relate its culture and history to our strategic and economic interests. This would allow us to analyze the motives behind the various mass demonstrations and develop appropriate individual responses to each."
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, I think, said it best. In a speech addressed to diplomats and other officials on November 30, 2000, she stressed that "cultural factors are utterly inseparable from foreign policy" and "the more we know and understand about cultures of those with whom we interact, the more successful our policy will be."
Jefferson believed that liberal education was essential for the freedom and democracy of all nations in the world, not just for Americans. He believed strongly that knowledge and freedom are profoundly intertwined in all societies. He wrote in 1816, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." In the same year, he pointed out specifically that education could eliminate tyranny. In his memorable words, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day."
Jefferson would approve of America's trying to promote democracy worldwide today, but by peaceful means only. He "abhorred war" as "the greatest scourge of mankind." Influenced by Vattel's 1758 natural-law-based volume The Law of Nations, he followed in the tradition of Grotius, the father of international law, believing that the intercourse of nations must be governed by the rule of law.
Yet, Jefferson was no closet philosopher, doctrinaire idealist or pacifist. He was a pragmatist who spent 40 years in public office, including years as a minister to France and as the first secretary of state. And, as president, he fought successfully the first Barbary War in 1801-05. To him the war was defensive and of necessity. What is less known, his administration flirted with what is nowadays called "regime change" in Tripoli, today's Libya.
In approving of democracy building, however, Jefferson would insist that a people must be prepared to receive democratic values on their own initiative and in their own time. His plan for democratization in Louisiana, for example, waned because he believed that the preconditions for democracy did not exist there. Louisiana had no public education, and its political culture had been so "imbued with Spanish feudalism and Roman Catholicism" that its people would not be able to contemplate individual rights and the rule of law, let alone accept such modern values and principles and abide by them in action.
By contrast, Jefferson viewed preconditions for democracy in Europe as generally favorable. For example, his Act of Religious Freedom was received in France and elsewhere in Europe, according to his letter of January 1786 to Madison, "with infinite approbation and propagated with enthusiasm."
Jefferson believed, however, that the best way to promote democracy globally is by creating a great American example here at home. He wrote in 1801, "A just and solid republican government maintained here will be a standing monument and example for the aim and imitation of the people of other countries."
It would appear that the Arab people are trying today to follow the American example. The rallying cry everywhere has been freedom and democracy, not an Islamic state. I think Jefferson would smile hearing President Obama's remarks of May 19, 2011, on the Middle East and North Africa, in which he made clear that U.S. support for "universal rights" such as freedom of religion is a "top priority, not a secondary interest," and drew a parallel between the American Revolution and the so-called Arab Spring. He predicted boldly that "repression will fail, and that tyrants will fall," adding "that every man and woman is endowed with certain inalienable rights."
I do not think, however, that Jefferson would feel wholly satisfied with President Obama's democratization strategy for the Middle East because it would seem to overemphasize economic tools. As desperate as the need for economic reforms is in the region, Jefferson would have believed that liberal education must be the centerpiece of economic development as well as political stability and security. I think liberal education would also advance social cohesion and a stronger sense of identity in Arab societies.
To primordial sectarian, religious and ethnic divides is now added a new cultural gulf between modern and traditionally educated people. Liberal education is essential for overcoming social and cultural strife. I would, therefore, suggest that the Obama administration work with Congress to create a Comprehensive Educational Plan for the Middle East and North Africa. In other words, what is crucially needed is some kind of an Educational Marshall Plan for the Broader Middle East, including Afghanistan and Iraq. To my distinguished friend Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, I say that your concept of "sustainable stability" in Afghanistan would require the expansion of education. We are already engaged in literacy training for Afghan forces, and we need to do more; only one in 10 recruits can read or write.
No matter what the American strategy may turn out to be, however, the outcome of the ongoing Arab uprisings is unpredictable. The transition to democracy in Tunisia and Egypt today and perhaps elsewhere in the region will take generations and will be a complex process. If Arab leaders fail to transfer power to civilian control by peaceful and popular means, including fair and free elections, there is every reason to believe that new types of authoritarian regimes will rise. In his letter of April 2, 1790, Jefferson told Lafayette not to expect transition "from despotism to liberty in a feather bed." I think there is no feather bed in sight at the moment in the Middle East and North Africa.
Middle East Policy is fully accessible through the Wiley Online Library
Click below to subscribe to the online or print edition of Middle East Policy and gain access to all journal content.