Waltzing the Dictators
I’m sure you’ll remember the stirring words of Bush’s second inaugural address: “We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.” And so, Bush declared, “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
At the time, not a few wondered how serious we should take all of this. Well, now we know. For this month, the Bush administration is playing host to not one, not two, but three leaders who have done everything possible to undermine democracy and liberty in their own countries. April 2006, it turns out, is the month when Washington waltzed with the dictators.
Last week, of course, Washington welcomed China’s president, Hu Jingtao. Now, there are many reason to meet with the leader of the fastest growing economy and most rapidly rising power in the world. We need their help to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and Iran not to build any. We need them to improve the terms of trade by devaluing their currency. We need their cooperation in addressing global challenges like global warming, avian flu, and energy security. But surely among the most important reasons to meet with the leader of China is to remind his people that we take liberty and democracy seriously not only for ourselves, but also for them. Yet, on this critical issue Bush made as little headway as he did on the other issues.
If greeting the Chinese president with full honors can be explained by the importance of China in the world economy and international politics, the same cannot be said of some other unsavory characters that were received by official Washington this month. Amongst the worst of the lot was the president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who was greeted by our chief diplomat at the State Department earlier this month. “You are a good friend and we welcome you,” Rice declared at a press availability with Obiang. This about a leader who the State Department’s own human rights report regularly excoriates for his brutal rule of this small west African nation. “There have been no free, fair, and transparent elections since independence in 1968,” states the latest report. But Obiang’s nation is rich in oil and gas — it is the 3rd largest oil exporter in Africa, and the 10th largest in the world. And so, Obiang gets the red-carpet treatment at Foggy Bottom.
Next in line was is Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan. He’s doing Obiang one better – by going to the White House on Friday for a formal visit in the Oval with Big Guy himself (though, no 21-gun salute for him). According to the White House, the two presidents will be discussing their “common commitment to working together to advance freedom and security.” That should be fun, given that Aliyev has used his riot police to brutally beat down demonstrations by his political appointments, and conducted two seriously flawed elections to solidify his power (which he inherited from his father, Haydar Aliyev, the long-ruling strongman of this former Soviet republic). So why the White House visit? Some officials say that it is to thank the Azerbaijani president for sending some troops to Iraq. (I’m sure those troops really made the difference.) But it wouldn’t be because Azerbaijan has begun pumping its share of the large oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea through a pipeline that runs from the Caspian over its territory all the way to Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, now would it?
Last January, Bush told Congress and the nation, that “America is addicted to oil.” And so its leader is — democracy be damned.
So why the White House visit? Some officials say that it is to thank the Azerbaijani president for sending some troops to Iraq. (I’m sure those troops really made the difference.) But it wouldn’t be because Azerbaijan has begun pumping its share of the large oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea through a pipeline that runs from the Caspian over its territory all the way to Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, now would it?
Well surely in the case of Azerbaijan, the meeting had something to do with planning for various contingencies related to ongoing and impending hostilities with Iran.
April 26, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why the White House visit? Some officials say that it is to thank the Azerbaijani president for sending some troops to Iraq. (I’m sure those troops really made the difference.) But it wouldn’t be because Azerbaijan has begun pumping its share of the large oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea through a pipeline that runs from the Caspian over its territory all the way to Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, now would it?
Well surely in the case of Azerbaijan, the meeting had something to do with planning for various contingencies related to ongoing and impending hostilities with Iran.
April 26, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - you're undoubtedly correct. Deployment of US Troops to Azerbaijan has been in the works for a couple of years now, and the denial has been voiced also. It's not hard to figure out. Azerbaijan is not a member of the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, so it's ripe to host US troops there. I think, however, that Russia is exerting pressure to stop any US military deployment. So it may not happen. It's a good one to watch.
Neoboho
April 27, 2006 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Good first questions here for Tony Snow
April 27, 2006 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Pervez Musharef? I don't know if he's technically a dictator, but he's moved his country in a less democratic direction.
April 27, 2006 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Musharraf is, without question, a military dictator. He took power in a coup d'etat, held a referendum on his rule which was boycotted by the opposition and widely accused of being a sham, and he continues to hold both the positions of President and General of the Army.
On the other hand, he is generally considered to be a moderate and makes at least some efforts to keep political corruption and Islamic extremism at bay. He also apparently shut down AQ Khan's nuclear proliferation network, although Khan has only been sentenced to house arrest and as far as I know US officials have not been allowed to question him.
Musharraf is an excellent example of why the President's pro-democracy campaign is such a fiasco. Like Egypt's President Mubarak, he's probably a more benign leader and a valuable asset against Jihadist terrorism than his country would elect democratically. So the US understandably (if not admirably) supports them. Yet we go around preaching out of the other side of our mouth that democracy is the be-all end-all of our foreign policy, even though it transparently isn't. And, naturally, everyone in the Middle East knows we aren't serious about democracy promotion.
You can have a foreign policy that is primarily committed to American security, or you can have a foreign policy that is primarily committed to democracy. I could get behind either one if it was carried out effectively. But right now we have a foreign policy that loudly claims to be committed to national security AND the spread of democracy but does little toward either goal. Bush is really only genuinely committed to saving face in Iraq and keeping the oil flowing. And as evidenced by our courtship with Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea, the democracy rhetoric is just fodder for domestic political consumption with no relationship whatsoever to reality.
April 27, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo
There are other, more subtle ways of advancing a democratic agenda on those who have shunned it in the past rather than simply pressing them on the topic. Indeed, intentions of the United States are well known throughout the world--meaning that the president does not have to directly ask or even politely request a Hu Jintao or a Mbasogo to "conform to our wishes."
The Bush administration has made substantive progress on the issue with Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt, and I would even argue that China's reforms of the last decade have been largely influenced by secondary pressure from the United States. Many here decry the war as being an imperialistic example of the United States forcing its will upon other nations. Would not the same be said if we rhetorically 'demanded' other nations to adopt more democratic principles? Through dialogue focusing on economics, trade, and human rights we can just as easily promote the identical agenda--only through softer, more subtle terms.
April 27, 2006 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg you definitely sound like an apologist for the Bush Administration. Bush was the one who made spreading freedom and democracy a cornerstone of his 2nd term foreign policy by highlighting it in his inaugural. He's had opportunity to walk the walk and shown he is only able to talk the talk. It seems that Bush is only comfortable to push freedom and democracy at the point of a gun. The gun should only defend freedom and democracy not spread it...
April 27, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine
It seems that Bush is only comfortable to push freedom and democracy at the point of a gun.
So you believe Bush should flat-out demand that these other nations conform to American ideas of democratic reform? If so, then it would be mighty difficult to criticize the president for going to war in Iraq because the two things are identical. I was saying Bush could press these foreign leaders for democratic reform without "pointing a gun" at them. How? As I mentioned: through discussions ranging anywhere from economics, to trade, to human rights. It would seem that this is indeed the strategy he is using with China.
April 28, 2006 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say that Gettysburg. Bush was the one who said a major goal for his 2nd term was to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. Mr. Daalder and the commentors on this thread have showed that Bush's words don't square with his actions.
But to answer the question you posed to me...Yes, I would like to see Bush become more forceful on the issue. Your ideas seem to be a good place to start but as far as I know you are not the president so unless Bush changes his position it appears it will remain status quo...aka nothing will be done. And I disagree with your assessment on China...nothing was accomplished towards those ends during the recent State visit by the Chinese. What were the concrete concessions the Chinese made in their recent visit that would give any indication that are moving towards a more democratic and free society?
April 28, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Can I dance wif yo date (Animal House)
On second thought, I'll sit this one out
Bush Praises Muslim AllyPresident hosts leader of Azerbaijan, an oil-rich nation with a spotty human rights record.April 29, 2006 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg! You still here? Man I'm glad to see you didn't just throw your hands in the air and bag it. I really thought you were going to get Scott McClellan's job. You're so damned good at it I thought you were a shoe-in. Sorry they passed you over man, I know it must have been a big disappointment. Who's this Snow character anyhow?
Your point is well taken. A "dialogue focusing on economics, trade" would have produced much better results in Iraq than our current policy has. For a fraction of the cost we could be supporting Saddam in a Riviera resort right now and had a much more orderly transition.
Anyhow, good to see you still slugging away at it. If Lieberman wins again I hear he'll be looking for a new press secretary. Just a thought man. Ya know, a guy's gotta have some goals in life.......
May 1, 2006 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The proper romanization of the Chinese President's name is Hu Jintao not Jingtao.
May 2, 2006 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Tony Snow for the job. He's feisty and will be quick to jab with the irascible press corps.
May 9, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink