Let Freedom Reign (Part MCMIV)

The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl looks at the latest chapter in President Bush's unwavering support for democracy:

[A] fter more than two years of stalling, the president will deliver a warm White House welcome to Ilham Aliyev, the autocratic and corrupt but friendly ruler of one of the world's emerging energy powers, Azerbaijan.

The State Department said of Aliyev's parliamentary elections, "there were major irregularities and fraud."  Three of Aliyev's foes are being tried this month on treason charges, and his biggest rival has been jailed.

Aliyev is nevertheless getting everything he might have hoped for from Bush. Aid is being boosted, the Pentagon is drawing up plans for extensive military cooperation -- and there is the White House visit, which the 44-year-old Azeri president has craved ever since he took over from his dad three years ago.

The administration explains that it's just trying to counter Russia's influence. And I don't doubt it. But the rhetoric of "realism" aside, such a  "long-sighted" grand gane strategy strikes me as potentially very short-sighted.  How many times have we backed nasty authoratarians in the pursuit of wisened "real-politick," only years later to have it come back and bite us in the ass? (Michael Kinsley recently had a--kinda ponderous--round-up of realpolitick successes.)

In other words, yes, I'm still idealistic naive enough to think that our foreign policy can be largely--not wholly, but largely--"socially responsible": Just like the moto of those crunchy mutual funds: Doing the right thing also means doing well.

P.S. OK, fire away...

Comments

[Zathras]

Eric, the administration's strategy for central Asia either is shortsighted or it isn't. There is no such thing as a "potentially shortsighted policy" unless you intend to apply the adjective universally.

Personally, I think that if we moderate our stated objectives as to democracy, human rights and so forth we are likely to make more progress where progress can be made. Calling for democracy in countries with backward cultures is mostly useful for making us feel better about ourselves -- the objective isn't remotely attainable and isn't essential to American interests.

And it isn't really helpful where human rights are concerned either. These grubby corrupt dictators on Russia's borders recognize that the democracy America has been calling for most would have one result before any of the others, that being the undermining of their own position of power. As Russia and/or China offers to back them to the hilt while America urges a course of action they see as likely to result in their own overthrow, is our influence to discourage torture, corruption or outrages against ethnic and religious minorities likely to be greater, or less?

We should also remember that the question of human rights has a global dimension, one demanding that America and the other civilized countries set priorities. Genocide in Darfur is worse than arbitrary arrests in Uzbekistan. In the idealists' world we can be for everything good everywhere, but in reality Americans like other people weary of crusades, and eventually come to feel that one rotten situation overseas is the same as all the others. If we are to defeat the worst human rights abusers, we need to focus on them rather than proclaiming to everyone a definition of freedom that our own people take for granted and many foreign audiences barely understand.