New at Reason

Steve Chapman faces the tough foreign policy choices available in Pakistan.

Comments

joe | November 19, 2007, 10:36am | #

The fact that Musharaff isn't even using this state of emergy, allegedly announced because of the threat posed by terrorists, to go after the terrorists, but rather the democratic opposition, makes that foreign policy choice a lot easier in my eyes.

Being a grown-up, I can admit that "our interests and our values are now one" is a line used by idiots or con men. Sometimes they clash, and sometimes we have to make hard decisions. But while it might be in our national interest to prop up a dictator who fights our enemies, it is most certainly not in our interst to prop up a dictator who doesn't.

3W | November 19, 2007, 12:09pm | #

It is a sad, sad situation when the main alternative to a dictatorship is a ineffective democracy. Not because the dictatorship is the better choice, it isn't, not ever. However, the public, when faced with a crisis, will often choose the dictatorship to provide short-term solutions. Look at how quickly Europe became facist after WWI. Look at the rise of strong absolute monarchs after the Thirty Years War. People love turning to people like Musharraf when it seems there is no other way out.

Of course, dictatorships are never a safe bet for the long-term. It's good that the people of Pakistan have realized that. Now if only we could realize that we should at least stop giving blank checks to a man who regards unarmed lawyers as being the greatest threat to the nation.

prolefeed | November 19, 2007, 1:51pm | #

being the world's only superpower is greatly overrated. With power goes responsibility, including responsibility for what happens in critically situated, faraway countries that we understand dimly and can't necessarily control.

Ummm, we're not responsible for what goes on there, they are. But thanks for making the neocon argument on Reason!

joe | November 19, 2007, 2:54pm | #

The point is, when you are a Superpower, you DO take responsibility for what goes on on the other side of the planet. It's part and parcel of being a superpower.

Maybe we should just go back to being a power.

David | November 19, 2007, 4:35pm | #

Prolefeed -

With power goes responsibility, including responsibility for what happens in critically situated, faraway countries that we understand dimly and can't necessarily control.

Come on, you can't understand the sarcasm in there ? Especially on a libertarian website, shame on you.

That said, Joe's arguement rings the truest to me. Propping up a dictator at any point needs to be done with one Hell of a good reason. I really can't even think of a reason good enough at this moment, I don't think that Musharraf should ever have been supported for eight years at all.

As far as I know, libertarianism foreign policy is basically isolationist. It's for situations like this that make me think that's the right policy.

src | November 19, 2007, 9:06pm | #

I also think proppng up a dictator would take some pretty good justification. I don't want us to fund and perpetuate a police state -- and it's unclear that Musharraf's even that much of a military ally.

In the same vein, actually, I think libertarians can be concerned with the freedoms of people in other countries. This article wouldn't be criticizing Musharraf's thuggery if Chapman didn't believe that.

We can't necessarily control what happens in Pakistan. But the US's fairly ineffectual response to the "state of emergency" worries me. I have friends from Pakistan who plan to go home soon to visit family, and there's personal risk involved for them. I don't know if calling for earlier elections, or putting diplomatic pressure on Musharraf, might make this thing blow over quicker, or if the result would be even worse. But it's hard (for me, at least) to dismiss this as a problem in a "faraway country."

James | November 20, 2007, 12:18pm | #

If we couldn't prop-up dictators here in the United States where would all of our foriegn aid go?

rudecrusade | November 21, 2007, 8:52pm | #

I like how sfc pointed out the fact that libertarians can be concerned with freedoms of people in other countries.

It seems narrow thinking to me to hold one's ideals only true on your native land (hmm, what would be most American's native land.)

Borders are equality barriers same as race, sex and religion.

douglas Gray | November 21, 2007, 10:30pm | #

It's amazing how a situation like this makes everyone into amateur psychohistorians; trying to decide which course of action will bring an outcome that is somehow "better" or "worse" for us. What the hell do we know? Our batting average for good outcomes while supporting dictators isn't zero, but it's low. Bhuttos niece wrote a great piece about her in the L.A. Times. She's just as bad as Mussasharraf.