When a democratic country is faced with really objectionable regimes it faces a problem:
Isolating them makes your objections clear, but gives you no flexibilty. If their abuse of their citizenry (or those of other countries) worsens, you have nowhere to go, short of war. If it improves a bit, it is hard to reward progress without normalising relations. In addition, by appearing to bully, you risk strengthening the regime’s hold on power (as mentioned in some recent threads, this seems to have been a problem with US Cuba policy).
By engaging a regime in dialogue and trade, you can try persuasion and hope that the taste of an open society that trade provides helps reform.
The problem is that you run the risk of being held hostage by the regime you seek to undermine, since abandoning the policy in the face of some new outrage makes you look like a failure. The despotic regime, knowing that a democratic government cannot easily walk away once it has engaged a country like China or Indonesia, is liable to milk the relationship for all its worth.
In the absence of a disciplined, legitimate opposition (apartheid S. Africa, Burma today - 'though they’re not doing too well) isolation doesn’t seem to work (Cuba, N. Korea, Iraq). Yet engagement on commercial and diplomatic fronts seems to create vested interests within the democratic country which become de facto supporters of the despotic regime. In my country (Australia), this seems to have been a problem with engaging Suharto’s Indonesia: some business interests and public servants seem to have become apologists for Jakarta.
How should a sincere government deal with these issues? If we can keep this thread mainly focussed on this question rather than how awful various regimes are or how insincere democratic countries’ governments may or may not be, it might be more interesting than otherwise.
How about this. Trading with them is indefensable, but isolating them only increases the suffering of the common people while not doing anything to the government. If anything it increases peoples support for the government for standing up to the big bad imperialists. A democratic governemetn shouldn’t do either. They can refuse to trade with the country but, place no retrictions on what private companies or other countries do.
This topic seems to assume that, confronted with a despotic regime, the democratic country has a problem to solve. That is, is it our business to fix this other country? Or is it our business to take care of our own country?
My recommendation: Trade with 'em. Trade like hell. Nothing like a housefull of Teletubbies to lessen your despotic authority, I say.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Yeah. But at the same time, I think it’s disgusting when we go and provide them with Millitary rescouces. The 4 countries that come to mind first are Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, and Iraq. No way should a government be providing military training or arms to despotic countires. BTW. I’m going to start a new thread. I was going to include Israel in here, but realized that might hijack the thread. A new one will start. Should the US be providing millitary support to Israel.
history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce - Karl Marx
Fair enough: a third defensible position - ignore human rights, and just get on with your business. Either because you take national sovereignty as a principle seriusly or you think that do otherwise will be useless or counterproductive.
One problem with this is that frequently there is a fair clamour to do something about egregious human rights abuses, and that clamour is part of our business.
A valid point. In fact, there is generally clamor coming from everywhere about every perceived problem in the world. I would say that, this isn’t government’s problem to solve, in the same way that the Pope shouldn’t be jumping into debates within the Jewish community. Just not what the government is there for.
On the other hand, if those clamoring want to boycott another country, I say, more power to 'em. If they want to travel to that country and try to do something about it (as private people, of course). I say, have fun, wear your sunscreen.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
I’m kind of funny, I tend to look to empiric data to solve questions of this nature.
North Korea - Isolated to the extreme (somewhat by their own doing, alot by ours). Kims still in power (son takes over successfully from dad). People still in terrible poverty. No movement of any type to install any type of reforms.
Cuba - Isolated by the United States unsuccessfully for years. Still run by Castro (who, I might add for those who hate him, is no worse a dictator than Fulgencio Bautista, simply of a different political persuasion). No signs of reform. No indication Castro’s death would change much; potentially a nightmare if he does die with a total power vacuum possible.
Russia and the Iron Curtain - Openly democratic, for the most part (you do have to admit that the Russians have unique ideas about ‘democracy’; this is nothing new, it’s been true there since the early 1800’s). Conquered completely by the free flow of information and goods into these countries resulting from the fact we didn’t insist on isolating them (mostly because we couldn’t).
People’s Republic of China - The quintessential model for what we should think about doing with Cuba. Slow reform movement resulting inevitably from the inability of the government to totally restrict the flow of information and goods once Nixon went to the country and started prying it open. Peaceful (reasonably) transition of governmental power despite the tension internally between hard-liners and reform-minded governors. No one can expect a country of a billion plus people to convert to democracy overnight (I’m not convinced western-style democracy even makes sense in China), but at least we have slow and steady progress.
Iraq - We have attempted to make an international pariah out of Saddam Hussein and so far we haven’t managed to unstabilize his regime one iota. He responded by clamping down on dissent in his southern provinces harder than ever. His son looks poised to take over when he dies or is incapacitated. If we look back in another ten or twenty years and it is situation status quo ante, then we might ask ourselves: what have we achieved?
Libya - Not clear who won in this one. I suspect the best way to arbitrate the result is to declare it a slowly resolving draw; Quadafi wants more money and goods from Europe, the U.S. is tired of taking on TWO major oil suppliers and hopes now that his bark is worse than his money flow to terrorists.
It is always difficult to judge from history what to do (variable control is damn difficult and the number of samples is often low), but based on several examples from this century and last, one should reasonably conclude that isolation of unwanted regimes does little to resolve conditions in the country to our satisfaction. If we really believe the allmighty dollar is as powerful as we think, then we do our best work at creating better political climates by letting it do its job as much as possible in such places. Of course, that hasn’t helped Haiti any… (shrug)
DSYoungEsq: the problem with using the data is that this is a strategic situation, so that what worked last time will probably be factored into all parties’ reactions this time.
I agree with much of what you say, although I think your assessments are generally too rosy!
With regard to Cuba, I disagree that there is no indication that Castro’s death will change much. It will change everything, but who knows how. There is a chance that his death will mean that the US can back away from their current counterproductive policy and the Cubans will accept. I’m sure this is what a lot of players are waiting for. With luck, those in Florida and any hardliners in Havana will be sidelined. If this happens it will be quick. There is as you say, a chance of a real nightmare. Which way this goes will probably be pretty clear within a fortnight of Castro’s death.
With regard to China, remember the (perhaps unintentionally) wise words of Dan Quayle: [paraphrase] The move towards freedom and the market in China is irreversible…but that could change. [/paraphrase] The Party is still very much in charge, we have no idea about its internal workings. This could yet be another Hundred Flowers.
China is a good case of what I was talking about in the OP. Wanting to establish Star TV in China, Murdoch coincidentally cans (Hong Kong) Governor Patten’s autobiography and calls the Dalai Lama a fashion victim. Thousands of Falun Gong (sp?) are arrested and beaten - very little is heard from the West. My guess is that only invading Taiwan will threaten their trade status.
I appreciate your argument, but I am concerned they’re playing us like a piano.
picmr, I guess the best answer to the question in your last post would be to ask: are we playing THEM?
The answer, of course, is yes.
Each nation pursues its own goals in its international relations. Our goal since the end of the second world war has been to increase the incidence of democratic governance in the world (although you can’t convince the Iranians who suffered a CIA-installed Shah of that ), democratic, of course, defined by us. As noted in the above parenthetical comment, we often avoid our own principles where we think it strategically necessary (Fulgencio Bautista, Chile, etc.). I’d like to say we have been better for the last few years, but frankly our behaviour vis-a-vis Iraq makes one wonder.
All of which begs the question: “WHO SAYS democratic government is best for China and the Chinese?”
In pursuing our goal in China, and continuing our democratic institutions in the United States, one could just as easily argue that we are playing the Chinese for fools. It depends on perspective.
In my answer, the point I think I was trying to make is that you have to pick and choose which are your fundamental goals that you have to keep your eye on reaching. If you get all upset about human rights, you might choose to make improving such rights your goal, and adopt policies accordingly, but you do so at the peril of encouraging other strategic goals, such as increasing democracy through trade. Anyone who remembers the foreign policy disasters of the Carter administration can attest that modifying treatment of countries according to the perception that they don’t behave ‘right’ can cause all sorts of unintended consequences (Iran was just one of the examples). But, as with all slippery slopes, once you start trying to remove someone like Milosevic because he is a potential genocide, it becomes hard to justify not reacting to less obnoxious examples of bad behaviour by other countries (e.g., the PRC).
), democratic, of course, defined by us. As noted in the above parenthetical comment, we often avoid our own principles where we think it strategically necessary (Fulgencio Bautista, Chile, etc.). I’d like to say we have been better for the last few years, but frankly our behaviour vis-a-vis Iraq makes one wonder.