Saturday, March 04, 2006

What are your thoughts today?

What are your thoughts these days? I’m not too moved by the Portgate issue, sorry to say. Both sides are on the roof tops bemoaning the thought of ‘foreign’ countries operating ports. When Sen. Boxer goes off, it’s rather laughable given the fact Chinese are operating two major ports on the West coast. I may not be 100% comfortable with foreign ownership, but let’s see what the impact truly is before we go off.

Victor D. Hanson’s Friday article once again is spot on:
Fear in the U.S. of Russian nukes made strange bedfellows during the Cold War, like our relationship with the shah of Iran, Franco, Somoza, and Pinochet. The logic was that such strongmen, unlike Communist thugs, would evolve eventually into constitutional governments, or, unlike elected socialists, they could at least be trusted not to turn their countries into satellites of the Soviet Union.
We paid a price for such realpolitik when the Berlin Wall fell. Few gave us the deserved thanks for bankrupting the Soviet empire, but we did get plenty of the blame for the mess left behind by third-world dictatorships.
Now Middle East autocracies use the same "it's either us or them" blackmail. They hope to survive the tide of democratization by showing off their antiterrorist plumage. The problem is that the defeat of terrorism — like that of global Communism — ultimately rests with promoting freedom, not authoritarianism.
Decades of supporting right-wing authoritarians did nothing to ameliorate a dysfunctional Middle East. Perhaps support for democratic reform will usher in Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, something worse than Gen. Musharraf in Pakistan, and a shaky post-Saddam Hussein government in violence-torn Iraq, but what else is the United States to do?
About what we are doing now: We should keep supporting the process, but not necessarily the result; much less should we subsidize elected anti-Americans. The key is to keep a low profile and promote consensual government, but without bullying or grand moral pronouncements when the odious are elected.
We should praise the relatively free voting that ushered in Hamas, insist that they institutionalize the process that brought them to power, but under no circumstances give such terrorists any American money as long as they pledge to destroy Israel.
Allowing the autocratic Mr. Mubarak to go his own way without any more American largess may well empower the Muslim Brotherhood. Fine. Let the zealots talk all they want about bringing corruption-free government to Egypt at last, and hatred of the United States too. In response, America need only quietly explain that we no longer subsidize dictators — or terrorists who are elected to power through principled American support for democratic elections. I'm sure that after all the invective subsides, the Egyptians can sort out both our logic and idealism.
I’ve long questioned the support of Egypt as being foolish. I also am not fearful of the election results of Iraq and Palestine. Democracy has a way of balancing out differences. After all, we’ve always had a ‘cordual’ relationship with India while not always agreeing with their relationship with some of our adversaries.

1 comment:

Dave Justus said...

I agree with VDH mostly. I would say that there are a few conditions were 'real politik' is necessary in the WoT. At least temporarily and with some nations. For example, while I would love to see Democracy in Pakistan, right now that would result in an Islamist government, and one with nuclear weapons. Not a happy thought.

Similarly, I don't want to pressure Saudi too hard, especially with the situation in Iran as volatile as it is. That doesn't mean that there should be no reform, or that we have to say we agree with them, but while I want to 'destabilize' the middle east, in that I want those very stable dictatorships to go away, I don't necessarily want it to happen all at once...that would be a bit too much chaos I think.