Bartering democracy for the war on terrorism

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:05 pm

I just heard a long report on Deutsche Welle radio discussing the ramifications of Germany and the US making all sorts of friendly agreements with Uzbekistan, in exchange for the use of the country as a staging base on the way to Afghanistan and other nearby potential locations. (Cough, Axis of Evil, cough.) Uzbekistan is run as a ruthless Soviet-style dictatorship by Islam Karimov. Before September 9th, the US, Germany, etc, were ignoring Karimov and trying to promote deals with his more democratic neighbors. Now, the US has offered a 100 million dollar package in exchange for Uzbeki cotton (Uzbekistan is the third largest cotton producer), and promises to help Karmiov fight his own "war on terrorism," which evidently involves any and all parties who have chosen to run against Karimov in the past. Germany in turn has offered a great many services to Uzbekistan, in exchange for the use of the country as an airbase.

I'd been under the impression that the dangerous practice of building up non-democratic dictatorships to deal with other non-democractic dictatorships had finally been abandoned with the Cold War. Your opinions?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:43 pm

The United States has always placed pragmatism and "national interests" ahead of promoting democracy and freedom. Before 1991, it was deemed our national interest to stiffle the Soviet Union at every turn. Since then, our national goals have changed (often revolving around economic interests rather than Cold War activities), but our methods have stayed the same. Why change now?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:03 pm

@HLD, I suppose the obvious answer would be, what if the pragmatism you (meaning the US) advocate today becomes the cause of the wars and terrorism you reap, tomorrow?

Example: Afghanistan. With the Soviets having taken over the government, we personally armed a series of small indigenous cultures and elements (including the Taliban) that had previously not known firearms. And when the Soviets moved out, we simply let the sides we'd financed fight each other, without any kind of other guidance.

It could be argued that our policy there was misguided. Or in several African nations whose dictators we financed, and which now harbor terrorists in an effort to bolster the income we cut off after the Cold War.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:04 pm

The shortsightedness of US foriegn policy is frightening in its consistency and currency. Chile, Nicuragua, are now a generation ago. The support of an anti-democratic government for short term gains (Regional Stability, Military Platform) has never produced US beneficial long term gains (read hearts and minds overseas) and is the height of international hypocrisy. Imagine how the violently repressed minorities in Uzbekistan now feel about the 'good old USA'. It is almost ironic that it was a similar policy to the Shar of Iran that got alot of this stuff started.

Please don't see me as saying that the USA is the only country who gets it wrong. They as the leading world power are 'in the hot seat' and some recognition of this needs to be made by those outside the USA who comment from the sidelines.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - Curdis !

Mr Snow · Post by **Mr Snow** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:27 pm

IMO

The so-called "War on Terrorism" will be used by any government as a convenient excuse to crack-down on any discent in their country.

Because how does one define being a terrorist against a liberatarian fighting a corrupt government? One could say the means but the other-side of that coin is the "Desperate times, desperate measures" phrase, but again how does one define "terrorists" killing "civilians" against what a government would say, being "Liberators/nationalists" having "Collateral damage".

I suppose you are justified if you win?

One could say the West is weak to ignore human rights abuses in numerous countries, but how much is that attitude attributed by commercial interests? I don't hear many western/democratic people get upset about Saudi's human rights abuses and civil repression against minorities. (and in reality, how much is protested against in western countries, ie: American (north and south) indians, Kurds, Aboriginals etc - yes they were bad times and some restitution was done, but how does that repay the oppressed ancestors' descendents when they have no culture anymore and cannot live how they did).

Or are all democracies "Do as I say not Do as I Do"?
IMO: yes and no. Sure if dialog is there, change can happen, but if you don't get involved and it all turns to cr&p there is no point pointing fingers.

Eg: Kurds in Northern Iraq, without any internation recognition they have a flurashing democracy, 12 independent TV stations, over 50 independent newspapers and internet cafe's, fashion and music shops and modern shopping centres (scanners and all), all within 30 miles of 200,000 iraqi troops, and when the US and it's allies stop the no-fly zone the tanks will roll in and their (Kurds) freedom becomes a distant memory. But will the west stop suddam from attacking them in the first place (assuming nothing happens with the Axis of Evil cr&p), no. They will be all high and mighty after the fact, but doing preventative actions? I don't think so!

Just My two cents
Mr Snow

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:57 am

Originally posted by fable
@HLD, I suppose the obvious answer would be, what if the pragmatism you (meaning the US) advocate today becomes the cause of the wars and terrorism you reap, tomorrow?

The myopic foreign policy the United States employs is directly related to the fact that we have elected officials who have short terms in office. This means that our legislators and executives are more concerned with the short-term goal of re-election rather than long term goals like global stability.

In a nutshell, we'd rather pay for cure than prevention. That's why we'd rather build prisons than fund Head Start and why we'd prefer to spend several tens of millions of dollars per day fighting terrorism in Afghanistan rather than propping up a puppet regime with $50 million per year in foreign aid.

Government agencies like this as well because it means they get to continue funding half-assed programs (ie-the "War" on drugs) ad infinitum. The military likes it because it means they will always have jobs and will get to buy lots of new toys. Politicians like it because they will always have programs to point to showing tangible results ("We locked up 50,000 people this year and overall crime is down") rather than spend the money educating those people and seeing that they don't turn to crime in the first place (you can't quantify all of the kids who benefit from Head Start and government-subsidised lunches and go on to become productive members of society, but you can show how you've kicked them off welfare).

In addition, presidents like to see short-term (band aid) solutions because during their first term it helps them get re-elected. Then during their second term (if there is one), then they no longer care because four years later, it will be someone else's problem.

So should we lengthen everyone's elected terms of service and repeal the 22nd Amendment? No. Our government isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives. Still, what we need are men and women with the cajones to do the right thing and look out for our collective (read: national) long-term goals rather than their own electorate.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:57 pm

Our government isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives. Still, what we need are men and women with the cajones to do the right thing and look out for our collective (read: national) long-term goals rather than their own electorate.

Unfortunately, I don't see the changes you desire occuring in the government as it is currently structured. I am also beginning to think that the imperfections of a governmental system and its leaders becomes far graver as it accrues more power--rather like a perfectly good dam functioning under an expected load of water pressure becomes increasingly stress prone and revealing of unacceptable faults as the water increases. Bottom line, for me: we're the 500 pound gorilla. We may get whatever we want, but in the longterm, we can screw things up far worse than anybody else, for everyone, including ourselves, if we don't deal with systemic issues.