Thank You, Saud, May I Have Another?
Matt Welch | April 26, 2005, 8:25pm
If, as the saying once went, the road to Riyadh runs through Baghdad, there was no evidence on display during Crown Prince Abdullah's world-leader-leading second visit to President George Bush's Crawford ranch yesterday. The discussion and coverage was mostly about oil prices; some articles didn't even mention Sept. 11, and I only spotted three containing the word "Wahhabi." So much for that whole "U.S.-Saudi relationship on the rocks" storyline.
Besides making sure that all the Kingdom's 26 million oppressed subjects saw multiple images of their unelected theocrat being physically intimate with the Leader of the Free World, Bush and his pal Abdullah issued a mealy-mouthed joint statement that had this to say about domestic Saudi affairs:
While the United States considers that nations will create institutions that reflect the history, culture, and traditions of their societies, it does not seek to impose its own style of government on the government and people of Saudi Arabia. The United States applauds the recently held elections in the Kingdom for representatives to municipal councils and looks for even wider participation in accordance with the Kingdom's reform program.
That's it. Nothing, say, on the recent Saudi floggings and imprisonment of 100 men for "dancing and 'behaving like women,'" or of the continued imprisonment of three dissidents who dared call for elections and free assembly. (Note, too, how the first sentence, in addition to reeking of relativism, does not actually make sense.) Much more ink was spilled, as is the norm for these foul little gatherings, on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What's more, the Americans came off as downright apologetic compared to the country from which sprang 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 murderers.
We must work to expand dialogue, understanding, and interactions between our citizens. This will include programs designed to increase the number of young Saudi students to travel and study in the United States; ... The United States recognizes we must exert great efforts to overcome obstacles facing Saudi businessmen and students who wish to enter the United States and we pledge to our Saudi friends that we will take on this effort.
Note the serial use of the word "must." Well, forgive me for being cranky about it, but I'll go ahead and place the speeding-up of visas for young Saudis pretty low on my things-I-must-do list.
joe | April 27, 2005, 11:26am | #
"Bush invades Iraq and topples a brutal dictator and that's BAD."
Actually, it has more to do with how he invaded Iraq that was bad.
"He holds hands and tries to help the Crown Prince keep Saudi Arabia as an ally of the US and that's BAD."
Because, Lord knows, the House of Saud would immediately cut ties with the patron that have kept them in power, bought most of their exports, and provided them with their military power, if the Presdident didn't arrange for special puff piece visits to his estate, complete with romantic walks though fields of wildflowers.
"So, is there some other reasonable route to keeping the alliances we need, encouraging democracy abroad, pursuing our national security interests (and occasionally toppling dicatators for the good of all) that I'm missing here?" What you're missing here, rob, could sink the Queen Mary. Public pressure, rather than defeaning silence, on democracy and human rights. Engagement with internal reform groups, rather than acquiescence in the royals' policy of labelling them "terrorists" and "threats to stability." A cessation of asking for favors that will need to be paid back.
"Can someone else remember a time since Reagan was in office when things consistently went our way on foreign policy issues?" Does the steady expansion of NATO, the rise of democratic, pro-American governments throughout the former Warsaw Pact and Latin America, a peace treaty brokered between Israel and Jordan, a years-long period without any terrorist attacks in Israel, and an increasing commitment by western European countries to grow their militaries and take on greater responsibility for protect themselves and keep the peace count as "going our way?"
rob | April 27, 2005, 12:42pm | #
Wow, you'd think I was defending ALL of Bush's foreign policy, rather than just being savvy enough to realize that maintaining alliances when you need them and discarding them when they become intolerable is just smart foreign policy.
"Actually, it has more to do with how he invaded Iraq that was bad." - joe
And you're argument against my point is what?
"Because, Lord knows, the House of Saud would immediately cut ties with the patron that have kept them in power, bought most of their exports, and provided them with their military power, if the Presdident didn't arrange for special puff piece visits to his estate, complete with romantic walks though fields of wildflowers." - joe
Actually, those things actually might happen in a scenario where the House of Saud is toppled because they are seen as caving in to US interests and joe's route of "Public pressure, rather than defeaning silence, on democracy and human rights. Engagement with internal reform groups, rather than acquiescence in the royals' policy of labelling them 'terrorists' and 'threats to stability.'"
Besides, the public pressure route has been SO successful in the past, right? Yeah, Putin took his public humiliation from Bush and properly chastised, went right on to remove all barriers to freedom. (If only foreign relations worked the way joe envisions it, rather than leaders struggling to stay in control and in power and could actually be shamed into doing what's not in their best interests.)
joe, your examples of foreign policy coups aren't particularly convincing. "the steady expansion of NATO," - isn't necessarily a plus if we're going to violate international law by bombing Kosovo. "the rise of democratic, pro-American governments throughout the former Warsaw Pact and Latin America," - brought about by Reagan's administration's defeat of the USSR "a peace treaty brokered between Israel and Jordan," - good stuff, but not spectacular. "a years-long period without any terrorist attacks in Israel," - prove there were no attacks in Israel and I'll believe it. Not being in the news doesn't mean there weren't attacks. "and an increasing commitment by western European countries to grow their militaries and take on greater responsibility for protect themselves and keep the peace" - you're actually going to ttake the position that stronger militaries in the areas where WW1 and 2 were fought is a good thing? You'd argue that arms control is only a good thing when it's individual citizens being disarmed, then?
"I forgot the part where Nixon invited Mao to his home, scripted a number of photo ops demonstrating their personal closeness, and issued a statement acknowledging that the United States "must" accommodate China on a number of items on its wish list, while denying in writing that we seek to promote democracy there.
"Now we realize why rob's so hostile to 'diplomacy'" - What gave you that idea joe?
I'm the LAST guy to want to go to war.
"I don't turn my nose up at diplomacy per se, just the craven, humiliating, counterproductive variety." - Prove that this was counterproductive. The rest is just your opinion. Apparently you only turn up your nose at diplomacy when it's Bush conducting it.
joe and Mo - The US hasn't made a policy during and since the Nixon era of turning a blind eye to China's human rights record and according it a laundry list of wishes? I seem to remember a LOT of howling about espionage, human rights violations and Most Favored Nation trade status.
"Bush’s visits with CPA are part of a longstanding American policy that he himself has decried and he has made opposing tyranny a centerpiece of his foreign policy." - Mo
Hmmm... Maybe we should go ahead and take them ALL on right now, then? There's a difference between opposing tyranny and trying to take on all tyrants at the same time.
Matthew Goggins | April 27, 2005, 1:11pm | #
The President holds hands with the Crown Prince.
He invites him to his ranch for the second time, and gives him the royal treatment.
Does this mean he supports the Prince's brutal and undemocratic government?
Well, on the surface that's exactly what it means. But President Bush is boldly and repeatedly on the record, in his speeches and by his actions, in favor of democracy and democratic reform in the Middle East and around the world.
How`should we resolve the apparent contradiction?
One way is to decide that the Bush Doctrine of democracy promotion as a national policy is just an empty promise, convenient propoganda for covering up our imperialistic ambitions.
Another way is to decide that President Bush is biding his time with Saudi Arabia while he deals with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. And that if Saudi Arabia isn't planning to turn around like Libya's Khadaffi has turned around, then they are on a long-term collision course with the U.S. And if they end up colliding with us, then the House of Saud is fated to collapse and disappear.
So President Bush's very accomodating diplomacy in the second scenario above is merely serving to protect our western flank in Iraq while we try to coax the Saudis to dismantle their family oligarchy before its too late.
I'm not sure why so many commenters are willing to assume that President Bush is doing his closet imperialist act when he's being diplomatic, but I guess conspiracy theories are more titillating than looking at what President Bush has been doing on the ground in the Middle East and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
joe | April 27, 2005, 1:16pm | #
"And you're argument against my point is what?"
I didn't realize you had a point, rob. I was just pointing out the glaring error in your assertion that people who were against the war are opposed to working to toppling dictators.
Oh no, the House of Saud might be toppled if we don't prop them up? Hold me!
Seriously, rob, don't you feel just a little bit dirty suddenly swinging over to the "rabble in the street must be kept in line for our realpolitik" side, after having spent the last few months declaring that Bushies alone care about democracy in the Arab world? And crowing about your moral superiority for agreeing?
"Besides, the public pressure route has been SO successful in the past, right?" Berlin Wall speech, anyone? Bush's heated rhetoric about Syria over the past couple of months? FYI, both of those instances of the American bully pulpit paying off involved cases of American Presidents speaking out in support of existing, active resistance/reform movements, which the leaders of the targetted countries had to deal with for exactly the reasons of self preservation you mention.
"joe, your examples of foreign policy coups aren't particularly convincing" You didn't ask for coups, you asked for a period since Reagan when foreign policy has gone our way for a while.
"you're actually going to ttake the position that stronger militaries in the areas where WW1 and 2 were fought is a good thing?" As a liberal hawk, I believe that it is a good thing for stable, liberal democracies to have robust militaries. It's a jungle out there. You should real a little bit about 30s-era disarmament movements in western Europe. They used exactly your logic, and things didn't turn out so well.
"You'd argue that arms control is only a good thing when it's individual citizens being disarmed, then?" I don't want individual citizens to be disarmed (with the obvious exceptions for particularly dangerous individuals), though I support limits on how heavily they can be armed. But then, I don't want Britain to start building germ bombs, either.
"Prove this was counterproductive." Impossibe to prove a negative. When nothing happens in Saudi Arabia for the next few years, there will be no way to definitively prove that it would have happened if Bush has been more of a man.
"Apparently you only turn up your nose at diplomacy when it's Bush conducting it." I've come out in favor of some of Bush's diplomatic efforts - for example, his public statements on Syria, and his decision to co-sponsor a UN resolution with France insisting that they withdraw. And I've opposed diplomatic actions taken by Democrats, such as Bill Clinton's lobbying to prevent the UN from taking action in Rwanda.
BTW, if Bush had disinvited the Prince, and put out a statement explaining that he was doing so because of the imprisonments and executions of dissidents and religious minorities, THAT would have been diplomacy as well. I don't think you have a good working definition of the term.
I'm not going to defend the wimpy pro-Chinese stance our country has taken towards China since Nixon, but at least we haven't been treated to the level of presidential dictator-coddling that just took place in Texas. Seriously, that guy Bush walked hand in hand with, and who's wish list was released as a series of things America "must" do, endorses a legal system that executes women in public for giving birth to their rapists' children.
"There's a difference between opposing tyranny and trying to take on all tyrants at the same time." Nice try, rob, but the suck-fest we just witnessed is NOT the only alternative to an immediate policy of regime change.
rob | April 27, 2005, 4:43pm | #
"Bushies alone care about democracy in the Arab world? And crowing about your moral superiority for agreeing?" - joe
Find a place where I've said that. Or take it back and apologize for grossly mis-representing my position. I'm not going to call you a liar, yet, because I want you to have the opportunity to retract and apologize.
"I didn't realize you had a point, rob. I was just pointing out the glaring error in your assertion that people who were against the war are opposed to working to toppling dictators." - joe
No, what you did was not address what I wrote, and pretend that you did. For someone who screams bloody murder at what he considers the slightest mis-representation of one of your arguments, you sure are fast and loose in mis-representating other people's arguments.
I think my position is best represented by Matthew Goggin's last two paragraphs, and I appreciate the fact that he is able to say it more succintly than I did.
(BTW, joe... liberal hawk? To channel another thread entirely, is that like a gay Republican?)
"I was just pointing out the glaring error in your assertion that people who were against the war are opposed to working to toppling dictators." - joe
Big supporter of Kosovo, were you? So, if it's a Democrat leading the charge you're all for it? You know that wasn't my assertion, so knock it off. (I'm not a fan of either of the two major parties, so my opinion on this is certainly not for the sake of BS partisanship.)
"Oh no, the House of Saud might be toppled if we don't prop them up? Hold me!" - joe
You think the House of Saud is the worst scenario for Saudi Arabia? Man, you really DO see the world through rose-colored glasses.
"I don't think you have a good working definition of the term." - joe
Maybe you're right. I'm sure that your definition is superior to mine, since you're SO much smarter than me. Maybe it would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't mix your snide attacks amongst your arguments. (I try to keep my posts poking fun at your more questionable tactics as "stand-alones.")
Surely your definition of diplomacy includes the reality that you may have to do something distasteful in the short-term to accomplish your long-term goals. I don't like the taste of our Saudi Arabia policy, nor our China policy. But I realize that engagement works better than isolation, and that we may be better off dealing with the devils we know at this point than the potential disaster of not dealing with them. (Tho I look forward to the day that we can call tyranny out to its face, there are plenty of reasons that day is not today).
"Nice try, rob, but the suck-fest we just witnessed is NOT the only alternative to an immediate policy of regime change." - joe
No, it's not. But it might be what best meets our long-term goals. The alternatives might be worse than this, as I've discussed above.
Mo, if your "beef isn’t that we’re not invading Saudi Arabia, but that we’re letting them run the show and set the diplomatic mood when it goes against everything Bush’s foreign policy stands for" then yours is a complaint of type, not of kind. Frankly, I don't get that wrapped around the axles about who drives the car as long is it eventually gets where we need to go. We don't have to rub it in that we're in charge for the sake of our tender national pride or whatever - that's probably the worst idea for relations with ANY other sovereign nation. Let CPA take the lead, as long as we're tangoing diplomatically towards the right conclusion.
"What bothers me is the striking hypocrisy in Bush’s democracy promotion... How is this democracy promotion?" - Mo
You fight the battles you can win, not every single battle that presents itself. This holds as true in diplomacy as it does in war.
