regards-citoyens

"  As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so, to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more. " 
                                                                                                                                    — Barack H. Obama 
                                                                                                                                         Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 20091  

The so-called “War on Terror” has ended.2 By the end of his first week in office, President Barack H. Obama had begun the process of dismantling some of the most notorious “wartime” measures.3 A few weeks before, recently re-appointed Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates had clearly forsaken the contentious label in a post-election essay on U.S. strategy in Foreign Affairs.4 Gates noted this historic shift in an almost off-handed way: “What is dubbed the war on terror is, in grim reality, a prolonged, worldwide irregular campaign – a struggle between the forces of violent extremism and those of moderation.”5 At the same time, the Obama administration is taking care to reconfirm its commitment to defending the United States and its interests against the threat of radical Islamists, among others. However, because it is hard to replace something with nothing,6 the President should go further and offer a positive formulation – based on good law as well as sound policy – of how he will lead us to a “future of peace and dignity.” He should restore Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms to a central place in the nation’s grand strategy.

" In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the world. 2009].

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.7  "

                                                                                                                                      — Franklin D. Roosevelt

                                                                                                                                          Annual Address to Congress, Jan. 6, 1941

When President Roosevelt articulated the Four Freedoms in January 1941, he was promulgating a vision for a postwar world system of states dedicated to the promotion of respect for human dignity as a means to ensure security. Roosevelt called for policies that would make the world more secure by promoting freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, freedom from want, and a freedom from fear. This article examines FDR’s intentions and the subsequent history of the Four Freedoms in order to reveal how the Four Freedoms offer a principled and flexible paradigm for addressing the challenges and opportunities of an era characterized by a rapidly changing and formidable range of security challenges. It argues that the Four Freedoms offer a more apt decision making framework than did the ill-defined and alienating framework of a “War on Terror.” In place of an unending and unbounded war, they offer a paradigm of enduring values that would inform more humane policies and facilitate more rational decision making. The Four Freedoms point the way to a grand strategy or national policy that promotes long-term security, prosperity, and justice.

This article employs an interdisciplinary methodology, relying on the tools of history, political science, and strategic studies, as well as a form of constitutional interpretation that owes much to Justice Stephen Breyer’s concept of “active liberty.”8 This article explores the ways that the Four Freedoms were framed to address the dire circumstances of the Second World War. It analyzes the historical context of the 1940s in which the Four Freedoms first emerged, how they formed the basis of the International Bill of Human Rights, and how they evolved over the decades that followed. The history explains how the values they embody were quickly embraced around the world and then misplaced during the Cold War. When the Four Freedoms framed the American mission, the nation basked in unparalleled good will and wielded tremendous soft power. As security policy strayed from the principles they embodied, the nation’s ability to inspire and lead also diminished. Restored to their proper place, the Four Freedoms promise a more effective grand strategy than a “War on Terror” – one that relies more on demonstrating inspired leadership than on fighting and winning wars.

Part I introduces the argument that the Four Freedoms reflect fundamental legal norms and that they offer a framework upon which to develop a wise policy to promote meaningful and enduring peace and security. Part II describes the historical origins of the Four Freedoms. Roosevelt developed them as an articulation of American values and objectives specifically in order to lead the nation to defeat an unprecedented threat. He based them on his faith in American civil rights and his experience facing down widespread want and fear. The Four Freedoms were almost immediately incorporated into the Atlantic Charter as a mission statement for the Allies. After the war, they were also incorporated into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other basic components of international law. Part III examines the ways in which definitions of the Four Freedoms – particularly the freedom from fear – drifted during the Cold War era, plucked apart by those seeking to promote one or another freedom, people who ignored FDR’s original formulation of the Four Freedoms as a coherent strategy. This conceptual drift enabled presidential administration of George W. Bush to prioritize the freedom from fear at the expense of other important values. This distortion promoted a dangerous grand strategy that emphasized fighting wars and thus precipitated resentment and instability around the world rather than the empathy, support and peaceful relations that would have bolstered American security. Part IV further develops the proposition that the Four Freedoms present a compelling paradigm for peace and security today. Strategic adjustment is most effective when guided by a clear and compelling statement of objectives. The prospect of restoring the Four Freedoms to a central place in U.S. grand strategy offers such an opportunity. The article concludes by returning to the Anglo-American security partnership which forged the Four Freedoms in 1941 and calls for a recommitment to the vision of a peaceful world articulated by FDR and embraced by Winston Churchill, among others. When the Four Freedoms are treated as a package, they offer not only inspiration, but also a well-balanced framework for formulating effective policies to rationally address such issues as the global economic crisis, climate change, and widespread poverty, as well as the threats posed by radical jihad.

... / ...
 

Mark R. Shulman : Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs and International Affairs and Adjunct Professor of Law at Pace University School of Law. B.A., Yale University; M.St. (modern history), Oxford University; Ph.D. (history), University of California, Berkeley; J.D., Columbia University School of Law. Harold Hongju Koh’s presentation at the 2006 annual meeting of the American Association of Law Schools, Section on National Security Law, provided the initial inspiration for this article. Three years later, this article won that section’s writing competition and was presented at the annual meeting in January 2009. A previous iteration of this article appeared in the Fordham Law Review. See Mark R. Shulman, The Four Freedoms as Good Law and Grand Strategy in a Time of Insecurity, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 555 (2008). Any comments should be addressed to the author at Shulman@aya.yale.edu.

1. President Barack Hussein Obama, Inaugural Address (Jan. 20, 2009), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/.

2. See Dana Priest, Bush’s ‘War’ on Terror Comes to a Sudden End WASH. POST, Jan. 23, 2009; Accord, more recently and somewhat more definitively, Jay Solomon, U.S. Drops ‘War on Terror’ Phrase, Clinton Says WALL. ST. J., Mar. 31, 2009.

3. See Exec. Order – Review And Disposition of Individuals Detained at The Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities, Executive Office Of The President, (2009), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ClosureOf GuantanamoDetentionFacilities/; Exec. Order – Review of Detention Policy Options, Executive Office of The President, (2009), available at http://www.whitehouse. gov/the_press_ office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/; and Exec. Order – Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, Executive Office of The President, (2009), available at http://www. whitehouse. gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/.

4. Robert M. Gates, “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age” 88 FOR. AFF. 28, 29 (Jan./Feb. 2009). Other observers have been pointing to the inaptness of the term “war on terror” for years. For an early and notable example, see It Is Meaningless and Dangerous to Declare War against Terrorism, THE INDEPENDENT (Sept. 17, 2001), available at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/it-is-meaningless-and-dangerous-to-declare-war-against-terrorism-669538.html. See also Mark R. Shulman, J’accuse for the Bush Administration, 3 NYU J. L. & SEC. 39, 40 (Fall 2004) (book review) (favorably reviewing Richard A. Clarke’s Against All Enemies but faulting its embrace of a “war on terror”); PHILIP H. GORDON, WINNING THE RIGHT WAR: THE PATH TO SECURITY FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD 4 (2007) (arguing that, formulated as a global war on terror, the fight against terrorism has been fundamentally flawed from the start); RICHARD N. HAASS, THE OPPORTUNITY: AMERICA’S MOMENT TO ALTER HISTORY’S COURSE 58 (2005) (“So if terrorism is not a war, how should we understand it? Perhaps as a disease.”).

5. Gates, supra note 4, at 29.

6. IAN SHAPIRO, CONTAINMENT: REBUILDING A STRATEGY AGAINST GLOBAL TERROR (2007) (political scientist proposing a strategy of containment because the U.S. faces real threats that are not subsumable into a war and that “you can’t beat something with nothing”) 4 ff.

7. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress (Jan. 6, 1941), in 87 Cong. Rec. 44, 46 (1941).

8. See STEPHEN BREYER, ACTIVE LIBERTY: INTERPRETING OUR DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION (2005).

waronteror_fourfreedoms.pdf

Electronic copy available at :  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1333146