- Image via Wikipedia
No, this is not about the Russian spies. Not even the hot one.
During the Cold War the United States was willing to support almost any government that was willing to claim it was on our side or at least was willing to claim it would oppose our enemies. We were not very picking during this time period and backed some rather corrupt and repressive governments. We were also quite willing to support non-governmental actors, such as the folks in Afghanistan.
While this sort of support did help us succeed in the Cold War, we are now paying for these mistakes. To use two obvious examples, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can be rather directly tied back to what we did during the Cold War. In the case of Afghanistan, we backed the groups who were attacking the Soviets but we failed to do anything positive in the region. Now were are in the role of the Russians and trying to bring order to the land.
Now we are in yet another war, this one against terror. As in the Cold War, we are willing to support governments who say they will help us. While this is not a bad thing, we are quite willing to purchase the support of the rulers by tolerating corruption, repression and undemocratic behavior. The best current examples of this are in Africa.
While it makes some sense to buy allies, the Cold War (and in particular Vietnam) should have taught us that supporting such “allies” can be a costly mistake. Also, there is the ethical concern: we speak of democracy, freedom and human rights, yet seem to be willing to look away when we think that “practical politics” demands that we do so. However, principles that are easily set aside for what seems convenient cannot be worth very much.
Since ethics gets little traction in politics, it makes sense to point out that supporting such governments does not support or expand democracy. Rather, it merely supports tyranny and corruption. Such support also seems to have a historical tendency to create more enemies for America rather than creating solid allies.
Of course, it can be argued that we need to deal with the corrupt and even evil rulers because our foes will be eager to do so. That is, it is better that the devil is on our payroll rather than on our enemies’. China, for example, is eager to do business with the rulers of Africa and they have no qualms about human rights, democracy or other such concerns. As such, if we are unwilling to look away while handing over guns and cash, China will be happy to do so. This is, of course, a great situation for the corrupt rulers and they do not have to worry much about the people-at least until the next coup attempt rolls around.
Ethically, this is rather questionable. After all, the fact that someone else will happily support evil is no justification for us doing so. However, the practical aspect of this is rather strong and perhaps it can be argued that while this approach is bad, it is better than the available alternatives.
This situation cannot, of course, be entirely laid at the door of America and China. The people of Africa allow their rulers to act the way they do and hence they bear some of the responsibility. If Africa had stable, democratic and non-corrupt states, then I believe the United States would be very happy to support them, as we support Germany, Japan, France and our other democratic allies.
While it might be tempting to try to engage in democracy building once again, we have seen how that tends to turn out. Democracy and effective government seems to be something that must be built from within rather than imposed from without. That said, we can do more to support honest, democratic and ethical leaders-providing we can find any there…or here.
I’d rather have the Taliban around than the Soviets.
The important thing is a cost to gain ratio. It seems obvious that if you take one of the absolute worst failed states in the world, fight a war there, and start nation building, your ratio will not be in your favor.
But there are examples where democracy has sprung up after being given a kick in the pants from outsiders. Japan for example. And i doubt anyone would count Nazi Germany as democratic when we killed them into submission.
“Also, there is the ethical concern: we speak of democracy, freedom and human rights, yet seem to be willing to look away when we think that “practical politics” demands that we do so. However, principles that are easily set aside for what seems convenient cannot be worth very much.”
So what do we do Mike? At what point do we go into another country with our military to stop human suffering? Should we go into the Sudan? If not, then you are admitting that letting hundreds of thousands be murdered is ok, even if you have the power to stop it.
America has to make up its mind about when we use our military for humanitarian reasons. And anyone who doesn’t think the US military can bring safety to people is a fool. The victims of violence in other countries run to us when we’re there. They love us. If only our own liberals loved us as much. They’re to busy writing the next bumper-sticker….
One practical and ethical option is to not tolerate corrupt and oppressive states. If we are going to throw our support into a state and interfere, then it should be on the side that matches our professed values and not the side that grotesquely violates them.
If there is no viable alternative (that is, everyone who could possibly be a leader is corrupt and tyrannical) then we would be stuck with the lesser evil among the lot.
While we should help those in need, we need to take into account what impact our attempts would have. For example, we actually tried to do the right thing in Somalia and in return we were shown “gratitude” that involved dead Americans being dragged through the streets. While it is a horrible thing to say, in some cases a situation that is beyond our ability to solve should be avoided. As you have said, just because someone’s problems are legitimate does not mean that you should make them your own.
The saituation in Somalia must be clarified.
We killed about 2000 militants after giving food to thousands, then 18 of our soldiers were killed. Bill Clinton got scared that he might not be re-elected and pulled us out. So the bad guys won because of cowardice in that case. Our retreat from Somlia ended up being perhaps the prime motivating factor for the surge in Islamic terror. It was written about in bin Laden’s Fatwa as an example that America can be defeated by causing them small amounts of casualties.
I’m not for leaving Afghanistan. I just don’t think we nned tot hrow this much money into it. There’s more dangerous places we should be in with more stuff. The taliban is not in power and won’t be with our help.
On the other hand, even weak democracies are better than the anarchy of Somalia.
You must conclude that Vietnam is a different place now after years of war. They are like Japan but not on a global scale. Modernised and industrialised. Could Afghnitan & Irag end up the same after it’s all over?
They both can. It is not impossible but Iraq is much further along in it’s ability to catch up and integrate with the rest of the world. Afghanistan would have much more catching up to do. Taking a people and going from the Middle Ages-Age of Enlightenment(just using it in a timeline folks so don’t get all hot and bothered)-Age of Industrialization-Modern Age-High Tech Age(I’m sure history will give it a better name like WTF were they thinking? age) in just a small period of time would be some culture shock.