Missing from London G-20 summit communique: The word ‘free’

President Obama did mention the phrases “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and “liberte, egalite, fraternite” during his European tour, but it was almost eerie how empty his speeches were of words on the importance of freedom and democracy to a future of peace and prosperity.

Keith Hennessey points out:

The London G-20 communique of April 2 says:

We start from the belief that prosperity is indivisible; that growth, to be sustained, has to be shared; and that our global plan for recovery must have at its heart the needs and jobs of hard-working families, not just in developed countries but in emerging markets and the poorest countries of the world too; and must reflect the interests, not just of today’s population, but of future generations too. We believe that the only sure foundation for sustainable globalisation and rising prosperity for all is an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions.

On the other hand, the communique of the last G-20 summit, Nov. 15, 2008, in Washington, said:

We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems. These principles are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have lifted millions out of poverty, and have significantly raised the global standard of living. Recognizing the necessity to improve financial sector regulation, we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows, including to developing countries.

Notice that the new communique scrubs out references to “free markets” and “the rule of law.”

Why the change? It’s hard to explain.

‘Freedom is a right.’ In Prague today, Obama did not mention democracy, but it was reassuring that he declared “freedom is a right for all people.” (Or, more accurately, he declared that “We are here today because of the courage of those who stood up — and took risks — to say that freedom is a right for all people.”) Then he said:

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power -- as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon -- the United States has a moral responsibility to act.

OK, does this mean we no longer stand for freedom, but only for freedom from fear? He couldn’t have meant that, but he should be clearer on this.  Freedom is not something to be timid or vague about.

Cold War legacy. Today he also said:

“The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War.”

But are the thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States and Russia really the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War? Or might it be more convincingly argued that the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War is the brutal repression of regimes, like those in China and North Korea, that the Soviet Union inspired and protected during the Cold War?

And how about those anti-democratic habits that the Kremlin can't seem to shake? They're a pretty dangerous legacy, too. 

Frank Warner

Comments

[George]

What did you expect from a socialist?

[Frank Warner]

I don't think he's a socialist. But I also don't think he's given much thought to the power of freedom.