Friends Without Benefits
Is it smart for the Bush administration to ally with dictatorships in order to fight Islamic extremism?
An article in The Economist on American relations with Ethiopia got me thinking about this question. Since 9/11, a range of ghoulish dictators and autocrats from across the globe have witnessed their ties with the United States improve dramatically. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, the Saudis, and Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi are just a few examples that come to mind.
So, what can explain these autocrats increasingly friendly relations with the United States? It’s simple, actually. They’ve all labeled themselves as anti-terrorist — and somehow, that seems to be enough to get on our good side these days. “Everybody is playing the counterterrorism card on the Bushies,â€? a former intelligence officer quoted by Harpers pointed out. “All you have to do is say ‘counterterrorism,’ …and you’ll be given guns, money, and trucks.â€?
Putting aside for a moment the serious moral issues of such a policy, is this even a good strategy?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Friends Without Benefits”
No, it is the kind of short sited policy that got us into this mess in the first place. Anyone seen Rambo III?
I could see a limited roll for partnering with local bullies on the ‘front lines’ so to speak. Pakistan seems like the only hope for that area, as sad as that is to say. However, each and every such unfornunate ally should be paired with a egalitarian movement in a neighboring country. I’m sure if the US government gave the peace corps even just $10million to spend in northwestern India to promote local egalitarian governance that the Peace Corps would jump at the chance, and inevitably bring western values and culture over to that part of the world in a way that troops cannot.
Oh I would like to add that I think it is a bad idea to directly promote democracies in the countries of semi-friendly dictators. They generally don’t like it very much at all, and are more afraid of loosing control to a US backed democratic movement than a isolated tribal movement.
While not autocratic regimes, Russia and Israel have used this strategy to get the nod for harsher treatment of Chechnya and Palestine (as well as Lebanon).
This is the exact policy that bred the resentment against the United States in so many countries. It’s just further proof that this Administration and their allies have learned nothing from history.
Cozying up to dstatestful regimes and scum of various stripes for expediency at any given moment has long been a US foreign policy tactic, long before Bush.
It would take a lot more than a new tenant in the WH to achieve the sea change necessary to stop this practice. It’s also hard to make sweeping statements about all such practices. After all, Stalin was our ally in WWII.
At the moment, we need whatever help we can get from Pakistan, so I don’t think our relationship will come up for review unless Musharaff becomes a much bigger problem than he is now.
Still, I dream of the day this issue could be discussed In Washington. I dream.
Domajot is completely right: “Cozying up to dstatestful regimes and scum of various stripes for expediency at any given moment has long been a US foreign policy tactic, long before Bush.”
Bush is actually the first president since Carter to criticize the lack of democracy among US allies (for example, his admin’s criticism of Mubarak and efforts to promote democracy in Egypt).
There are deep cultural antibodies against democracy in the Arab world. We are discovering that in Iraq.
Bromides like promoting peaceful democratic change sound all very nice. However, (1) why would autocrats just sit around and allow this to occur; and (2) in countries like Egypt, democracy would allow groups like the Muslim Brotherhood to rule.
There is enough chaos in the Middle East without trying to promote democracy everywhere. Bush would love to do this, I am sure, as he is a Wilsonian and an Activist president. Iraq has, however, ensured that this is not likely to occur.
I agree with Marlow that ME culture and religion does not lend itself easily to democracy- as we have seen in Iraq. But I don’t think we really can handle the results of truly democratic elections, when they are not friendly to the West either. We never predicted a constitution based on Islamic law in Iraq, but that is what we got. We never predicted a victory by Hamas in Palestine or the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after free elections. When we can’t deal with true democracy, we choose faux democracy, relying on democratic rhetoric, while our policies force out the freely elected leadership.
That is why noninterventionism would have been a much wiser course to take. Now that we are in the middle of two wars and a regional arms race that may include nuclear weapons, we are forced again to deal with unsavory governments that use anti-democratic tactics. Its expedient, but loses us the moral high ground. The US is widely hated in the Arab world because of 50 years of interventionist policy backing pro-Western dictatorships against nationalist governments.
Which is also why it’s a rather smart move that the Bush administration is intervening through proxies. I’m not saying that’s a morally pure way of doing this or even that it won’t backfire (if they’re actually allowing Bandar to unleash the Islamist genie again, that’s dangerous and foolish, for example). But it is smarter for the US to not be seen as the sole superpower pulling all of the puppet strings. At least if we still have to engage in these types of policies, doing it that way is a bit smarter.
In fact an irony just occurred to me. While the Bush administration has had a stubborn and often reckless tendency toward unilateralism in military efforts, they’ve wisely gone with multilateralism in almost all diplomatic efforts. It seems to be working in NK (time will tell, but it seems to me that they redid the ’94 deal in a way that now makes a lot more sense), and Iran may soon bear fruit as well. I think Bush has taken a lot of heat for unwillingness to negotiate unilaterally with our enemies, but history may look much more favorably on that strategy.
And to get back to Kim’s quote above, the problem as I see it is that nonintervention isn’t really an option either. If the alternative to US backed governments in the Middle East is the establishment of a regional Islamist Caliphate, then we won’t be able to avoid an eventual confrontation. There has always been, and always will be, a need for global balance of power.
CS – I agree that there is a need for a global balance of power, but our interventions do not appear to be maintaining that balance very well. If that was the goal, we should have left the secular Sunni- Saddam in power to offset the power of an Islam Shiite-dominated neighbor, Iran.
The regional instability that was caused by his removal is what is forcing us to deal with Bandar and jihadist Sunni groups who may use the funds we are giving them to plan the next 9/11. I don’t see any way that that decision can be seen as anything other than a move of pure desperation, and one that is both rash and short-sighted. The Bush administration should not be credited for wisdom, rather condemned for another reckless gamble of our national security interests.
Many post-WWI and WWII Arab nations wanted nationalist governments, not an Islamic Caliphate. The meddling of the US, Britain and others led to puppet regimes or supported repressive autocracies that have created the anti-US rage in the first place among the Arab and Persian peoples. Putting the Shah of Iran in power to replace a nationalistic democratically elected leader is one example of this. Another is Britain’s betrayal of the Arab nationalist movement- Lawrence of Arabia’s story.
We are not maintaining global stability, we are destabilizing a the world and the region because of our vital interest in it, coinciding with our consummate ignorance of foreign cultures.
Kim,
But my point was only this: the global balance of power is still vital to world peace and to US security. You seem to agree with that point, but how do you think that that balance should or could be acheived if not through intervention? Do you really think if we just become isolationist that everything will sort itself out?
You’re right that some Arab and other Muslim peoples are nationalistic and would not choose to put themselves under a Caliphate rule. However, even in nationalistic cultures there’s been a tendency to look toward theocracy or to have a dual power structure between religious authority and government authority (Egypt, Iran, etc). Those structures aren’t terribly inherently stable though, so they leave room for exploitation by the Islamists. All those groups then have to do is fearmonger the population into believing that Western culture is the enemy, and that their Caliphate ideal is the antidote. Yes, we’ve made it even easier for them to plant this fear because of our policies, but they could just as easily start focusing on our culture itself and how that is a threat to their way of life.
So, I’m not as convinced as you are that the Islamists wouldn’t win out (unless modernization takes hold in the Middle East, so that moderate middle class educated Muslims become so prevalent that the vast majority understand that Islam can be compatible with Western civilization.) And even if the landscape did end up being nationalistic theocracies or nationalistic semi-secular states, theres still the issue of tribalism and ethnic hatreds that would likely lead these states to be in a constant state of war with each other. And that’s not to even mention the human rights violations, oppression of women, etc, from the intolerance of some of those cultures. I’m not so sure we could coexist with those situations either.
CS-
Bolton gave an interview today (I think he has written a book), and he was channeling some of your ideas, even enhancing them quite a bit.
The man speaks about intervention and regime change as if the world was his private chess board and he could move bishops and knights around at his pleasure. When the US talks about intervention, it seems to know only one kind: military intervention. We don’t hink about other forms of intervention until its way too late. The Islamists were restless for years and years but we turned our back, because as long as we were getting our oil from the likes of Saudo Arabia, it was not our problem. But it was our problem all along, because it was obvious to anyone who was looking that local unrest can have far reaching effects. There was plenty of time to talk about this with the potentates, perhaps offering aid for education , perhaps offering help with building medical clinics, perhaps adding some other carrots to the pot. Instead, we do nothing, and then we go for the one tool we know: war, maybe with preliminary covert ops.
The Islamist did not rise because their governments were weak or unstable, as you said, they rose because their governments spent next to nothing on services but spent a great deal on repressng them to maintain power.
Hexbollah has learned this lesson. After the recent war, they came in with money and manposer to repair windows and doors, sometimes whole houses. People like whoever cares for them, sometimes even Satan. People who are adequately cared about are much less likely to engage in revolutions. People should be cared about, regardless.
Chavez has also learned this. People in the barios love him,
because he built clinics for them.
The next crisis will be in Africa, and we are ignoring that, as per usual. When trouble flares, we will go in with guns blazing, as per usual.
This is not smrt foreign policy.
hw do you think that that balance should or could be acheived if not through intervention?
Egypt, Iran, etc). Those structures aren’t terribly inherently stable though, so they leave room for exploitation by the Islamists.
domajot,
Well, at least you said Bolton is channelling me and not vice versa
I understand and agree with your concern about an overly militaristic approach. When I say that we can’t be isolationist, my meaning isn’t that we should invade or provoke war wherever we wish. Perhaps Bolton’s ideas run toward that but that’s not my meaning.
I’m sure we could do more in Africa but at least Bush has moved in the right direction with aid there.
And I do think that PR and public perception lag behind our reputation. Unfortunately, like it or not, we aren’t seen as the world’s benefactor. So even when we now offer aid, it’s often seen as a ruse. We’re not trusted, and I understand that to some degree we’ve earned that distrust; but either way, it will take a long time to earn trust back and unfortunately we have to deal with the reality that people will hate us in the meantime no matter what we do. And no, I’m not suggesting that this means that we shouldn’t try, or that we should just run ramshod over the rest of the world because they’ll hate us no matter what anyway; I’m just suggesting that we have to deal with short term strategies while also working on the long term ones.
CS- My point is that Islamists have won out in places that we’ve intervened- directly due to our intervention. The Iraqi constitution that we helped enact is based on Sharia, not priniciples of the enlightenment, like ours is. Our interference has produced many more jihadists that want to take the ME back to the days of the Caliphate- we don’t have the power to force these governments to be secular- the more we try- the more resistance we face. And by funding the very forces that are determined to destroy us, we are funding our own eventual destruction. Or have you forgotten who originally funded and trained Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan? Our own CIA.
This idea of remaking the ME in our own moderate, democratic image is madness, and it will have many unintended consequences that will be impossible for us to deal with in the future. We need to invest in energy independence and let these people sort their own problems out.
CS- I forgot to mention that we cannot force other nations to modernize-which you rightly mention as a precondition to a secular democracy. I still maintain that because we are viewed with such virulent distrust and malevolence in the Arab world, any move towards trying to modernize their society probably would lead to more calls for jihad and reclaiming territory that they controlled during the 12th century. What we are doing now is encouraging a return of the Caliphate.
Kim,
I think you’re confusing the tendency toward Islamism and the tendency toward a theocratic (but still nationalistic) government. The latter is more along the lines of what Iraq has today (at least on paper- of course the reality is that it’s anarchy unless the govt strengthens). If those who lean toward Iran are able to gain influence, then it will tip toward Islamism. That’s a big difference, because even though as I noted above, neither is to our liking, the Islamist variety is a lot more threatening to us.
And I don’t advocate forcing modernization; I think we can influence it’s development though by working with moderate elements in the Middle East. It’s important that it not be forced and it’s important that it grow organically from the Muslim cultures.
CS: “I’m sure we could do more in Africa but at least Bush has moved in the right direction with aid there”
As annoying as Bush bashers can be, the Bush hallelujas at every turn can also irk. When gov. officials speak, the praise for Bush has becomr the equivalent of ‘Allah be praised’ after every sentence.
I wasn’t speaking about Bush, particularly. It’s been the attitude through many presidencies and Congresses.
But as long as you bring it up, Bush’s aid has too many coat tail of various kinds.
I’m not for throwing money in the winds of Africa. But there are many low cost but ingenious projects that we could finance, but don’t because our military ‘necessities’ always take precedence.
Either that, or we are waiting for the eternal ‘private sector’ to figure out a way to make money from what they could provide.
Building toilets in villages (like the Carter Center) is cheap, but does wonders for sanitation and reducing disease. There are merry-go-round water wheels (as children turn it while playing), the wheel draws water from a deep well) that are cheap, but can supply a whole village with clean water. But this is not in our national interest, it would seem.
——————–
“So even when we now offer aid, it’s often seen as a ruse.
You make my point for me. We are always too late.
OK, I get the point and I agree that it’s been a long ignored issue. And I also agree about the great (and unlauded) work done by the Carter Center and a small handful of other groups. But in terms of America’s official image, I was focusing on our direct government aid because I think it’s important that it be stepped up greatly. China is beginning to have a LOT of influence in Africa and if for no other reason (not that there aren’t 100 other good reasons, mainly the humanitarian ones), we need to be there in a big way.