Natan Sharansky

Ayer leí en el Newsweek (del 7 de marzo) un artículo sobre Bush y Sharansky. En él se decía que Sharansky era el autor favorito de Bush, y citaban a Bush diciendo: "ese tipo de pensar es parte de mi ADN presidencial".
Hablaban sobre el nuevo libro de Sharansky: "The case for Democracy". En que trata sobre la importancia que tiene la expansión de la democracia y la libertad para la seguridad en el mundo. Hace poco en El País, había un artículo de Josep Colomer, titulado "Antes democracia que paz", donde habla sobre las políticas de Bush en el exterior. Cito esta frase que se parece bastante a las tesis de Sharansky:

Con este giro, el Gobierno de Estados Unidos vincula ahora
decididamente la libertad y la seguridad en su propio país a la libertad en otros
países.

Hace poco en uno de los comentarios un compañero, Rabbateur, también me citaba a Sharansky. Me puse a buscar en el Google y me encontré con esta joya de entrevista en el Frontpage Magazine a Sharansky sobre su nuevo libro, y me gustaría destacar algunas reflexiones suyas:

I was inspired to write this book by those who are sceptical of the power of freedom to change the world. I felt that the arguments of these sceptics had to be answered. The three main sources of scepticism are first, that not every people desires freedom; second, that democracy in certain parts of the world would be dangerous; and third, that there is little the world’s democracies can do to advance freedom outside their countries.

This scepticism is the same scepticism I heard a generation ago in the USSR when few thought that a democratic transformation behind the iron curtain was possible. Just as the sceptics were wrong then, I am convinced they are wrong now about the possibility of freedom spreading to the Middle East.

Los mismos que se equivocaban en aquel entonces, también se equivocan hoy.

First, as I mentioned, we can gain some optimism from history. It is important to remember that some of the most serious thinkers once thought that democracy was not compatible with the cultures of Germany, Italy, Japan, Latin America and Russia. The great historian Toynbee questioned whether democracy could ever flourish out of the Anglo-Saxon world or as he put it, in “alien soil.”

Let’s take Japan for a moment. Truman’s advisors were very sceptical about the prospects for democracy in Japan, as were most of the “experts” of the time. And there were good reasons to be sceptical. This was a country with virtually no exposure to the West for centuries. Japan rigidly hierarchical society, and unique culture was seen as antithetical to democratic life. In fact, when the concept of rights was translated into Japan it took a compound word consisting of four characters to express it. But democracy in Japan has been a great success story. Japan is not a Western democracy. The Japanese have kept their traditions, culture and heritage, but they have joined the community of free nations.

Lo mismo pensaban algunos sobre implantar una democracia en Japón, se equivocaron.

When Ronald Reagan called the USSR an evil empire he was fiercely criticized by many in the West who saw him as a dangerous warmonger. But when we in the Gulag heard of Reagan’s statement, we were ecstatic.

Me recuerda a algo que pasa hoy con cierto presidente...

I am optimistic that peace can be achieved in the region because I believe that every society on earth can be free and that if freedom comes to the Middle East, there can be peace. Thus, the potential for peace is there.

Comparto ese optimismo. Y no sigo citando porque se me hace demasiado largo el post. Pero la entrevista tiene muchas más reflexiones que habría que destacar.

Y como anuncia Chrenkoff en su blog: "If Bush can read it, you can too" (jeje). Recomdedado a Llamazaristas.