Politics

专制的诱惑

Oct 28, 2015 Ana Palacio

马德里——据称美国总统富兰克林·罗斯福在被问及美国是否支持臭名昭著的尼加拉瓜暴君索莫查时回答说，“他或许是个恶棍，但却是我们的恶棍。”无论杜撰与否，这则轶事都准确地总结了西方国家对世界的态度——上述态度奠定了冷战时期美国外交政策的基础。

但近来出现了一种更令人不安的情绪，即西方领导人不仅满足于“我们的恶棍”，而且满足于任何能稳定局势的恶棍，而不管会因此付出多大的代价。这是一种颇具诱惑力但却危险的心态。

经验本该推动西方领导人走向相反的方向。毕竟，随着时间的推移，事实证明貌似务实的冷战庇护主义其实远远不够理想。事实上，在很多情况下——比如伊朗国王，柬埔寨的朗诺，智利的奥古斯托·皮诺切特和刚果民主共和国的蒙博托——冷战庇护主义都造成了长期动荡和混乱的后果。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 24 Comments on this article

Elmar Chakhtakhtinski Nov 9, 2015

It increasingly looks like the US leaders have already caved into this temptation in one particular country: Azerbaijan. More on that at this link: http://azerireport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4676&Itemid=48
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Val Mackenzie Nov 7, 2015

Western aid should only ever be given if it includes includes goal oriented objectives to be achieved. And it should never be given to the government's directly, and should be mostly in the form of aid.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Diego Orlandi Nov 2, 2015

another great temptation of the 1st world countries it seems is, with the pretext of wanting to help, create POWER VACUUMS in cuontries where resources are to be taken, so as to enable the taking of these resources without any kind of traceability. maybe a collateral effect of this is that people will tend to settle for any leader so long as there is some kind of legible social establishment. in times where transparency has become ever more accepted, the cover-ups need to be ever more scribbly
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Brookes Nov 2, 2015

Western aid for civil society is usually a cover for US hegemony. The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, is a CIA front for regime change.
- Val Mackenzie Nov 7, 2015
  
  You don't think that Western governments give aid to help people who are in dire straits?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Pu Nov 1, 2015

Are you serious? Who do you think invented slavery, colonialism and gun boat diplomacy? Instability is caused by the wide gap between the haves and the have-nots. When will the haves give up some, just a little, to help the have-nots? Not holding my breath!
I only ask those who keep saying we are all god's children but never meant it just to stop saying it.
The Syrian crisis became a problem only after the refugees start to flock to the west. The west doesn't want to look bad not helping. After all, the western nations are humane! No?
Everyone for themselves. Nothing wrong with that. We are human. But no one likes a hypocrite.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Abu Nudnik Nov 1, 2015

The once healthy inward critique of Augustine has turned into a pathological self-loathing in Europe. Tribal feeling is real and will be for another few hundred years, until globalization has completed its leveling. After that happens, the world will be unrecognizable or, to be more exact, all too familiar and recognizable. There will be little left of diversity. But until then, the healthy tribal feeling for self-preservation will lead people in directions European elites would rather they not go. The Shah of Iran is enough example to show the faulty reasoning. The kings of Iran (Shahs) have ruled perpetually with two exceptions, both of which were theocracies. In "supporting" the Shah, critics really mean not assisting those who would come in, beat these people like a bunch of eggs and make whatever omelet the beaten decide to make of themselves. However regrettable the rise of nationalism and strong rulers are and can become, this master chef notion is messier, uglier and even less tasty. Palacio's consistent error is to confuse causes and effects.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Nov 1, 2015

' [The] reality, demonstrated starkly during the Cold War and its bloody aftermath, is that tyranny is never genuinely stable – certainly not in the long run.'

Nothing is stable, in the 'long run'. So what are we left with? The hope that there will always be a stable enough rising power to counteract the disintegration of a failing power, to keep things 'acceptably' functional.Every attempt to remove tyrants and other undesirables over the past 25 or so years (since Gulf 1) - has failed because it's resulted in a forseeable series of 'own goals' but the US (and it largely is the US; the accompanying 'coalitions' are of the coerced rather than the willing) continues to sublimely deny this, and score yet more. Syria can (possibly) be stabilized sufficiently to stem the flow of refugees and this is the true motivation for intervention - but only with the connivance of Asad. There is bluntly no other faction, party or power capable of holding even parts of Syria together. So we lurch, I agree, from tyranny to tyranny. Many of the tyrants being of our own making for our own purposes. The Saudis, for instance. Europe and North America are historically unique in developing and maintaining a facsimile of democratic governance for any length of time. Russia is certainly excluded form this; and Europe itself failed wretchedly on two occasions in the last century. China has every indication of becoming the next regional hegemon - but is by no stretch of the imagination a 'democracy.' Who knows but that this may be a saving grace if it truly can command a climate-sensitive economy. The US most certainly can't; it's currently effectively ungovernable. It's by mutual agreement with 'everyone else' that this fact is politely and studiously ignored. As are its consequences.

No, history always has been a mess. The periods of relative economic and democratic progress (for a large fraction of the population) have occurred largely since, say, 1900 or so, and in Europe and N America, mainly. Those of us lucky enough to have been born there, in that time, have been almost uniquely privileged people. The people of Africa and most of South America have not benefited nearly so much, due to local political conditions, mercilessly exploited by outsiders, and the local power-thieves. So far as climate change goes, the brutal reality is that humanity generally will behave reactively , not proactively. The survivors of a period of (several centuries?) of serious chaos and diebacks of human population, may find a way to functional governance. This was done in the exhaustion that followed the 120 or so years religious wars in Europe, roughly 1520 - 1648. But that accommodation was reached only after all ways of exercising dominance, had failed, and killed between a quarter and a third of the population. In present global terms, proportionately, this will cost us about 2.5 billion lives, over a similar period. We live in interesting, and maybe terrifying, times.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george sos Nov 1, 2015

"unable?(to contain violence)?I d say un-wanting to make any change unless it is dictated by the despots of the western world,the greedy corporations and banks.
But throwing in a bit of freedom of speech for arabs(who when they speak out ,have to be silenced ,since they start demanding return of the resources and wealth stolen from their countries by the western democratisers)....
Well said,but.I dont doubt the good intentions,but lets see some in practice.When you work for the few,and serve their purposes,how can you demand change which will benefit the many?
Our problem is that noone is honest enough to say the truth,to put the finger on the wounds.We are talking around the results,we are not trying to solve the root of the problems(call me religion/semi education/greed promotion/western!! prototypes...
Dictotors survive in worlds with darkness.And darkeness seems to fit the purposes of many of today's rich.Because in darkness the many can remain scared and numb.And they do everything they can to keep it this way (these so called leaders of western world).
We expect people who rose with money and dirty tricks to suddenly become reasonable and have a consiousness....right,keep hoping.
The only way changes come about,is revolutions.Which means blood.Which means people will suffer before they can possibly try to use their freedom (if they manage to get it) for good.But this requires those who arm ,who sell guns to,who finance different groups for their own purposes,stop doing so.It means we the west,stop them.Can we?can we close down weapons factories,create unemployed in the west and lose the income from these sales?Can we stop exploiting the poor,and have outsourcing slaves providing bigger profits for the few and horrible conditions for the many?can we say to our own self,to stop.to share?to fight injustice rather than embracing it,and even taste the consequences , of standing up to the few,rather than joining them in the hope we can get a few left overs from the rich man's table?
Can you?...it is too much money as a friend says.And too much money can buy anyone up....well almost anyone.
Lets be honest ,we are greedy ,and we havent done anything to educate a new generation with different ethos.Rather we promoted corruption and profit making at any cost.So now ,we are paying the bill.......
Lets not ask too mu7ch from our leaders...they are only a mirror image of ourselves.....and unfortunately,we suck(as a society )
Absolutely no hope.
best regards.GS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jose oscategui Oct 31, 2015

With due respect I believe Mrs Palacio's argument is totally wrong. First, she attributes the adoption of autocrats "sons of bitches" by the West to the difficult times of the Cold War. Not so, who stands today by the Saud family in Saudi Arabia? Who by the King of Jordan? Who for the rulers of Qatar?....etc May be for Mrs Palacio these rulers are not despotic.

On June 24 2013, Mr Brzezinski wrote in the National Interest: "In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden (Mr Brzezinski is talking about President Obama) announces that Assad has to go—without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. "
The Syrian crisis is not a civil war but a war created by foreign powers among them the US, the EU and those "autocrats" that Mrs Palacio finds so difficult to find.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 30, 2015

No one should interfere in no one else's affairs. Full stop; we live in an age where too much meddling is being permitted under one pretext or another.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Luke Lea Oct 30, 2015

The root of the problem, in my opionion, is that the clan- and tribal-based societies in the Middle East allow for no possibility of a legitimate state as we understand that term in the West: https://goo.gl/q18ekk
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 30, 2015

Ana Palacio points out that Franklin D. Roosevelt is said to have made a remark in 1939 about the Nicaraguan despot Anastasio Somoza: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Indeed the US supported this ruthless dictator, just because he was anti-communist.
Yet according to historian David Schmitz, researchers and archivists didn't seem to have found any evidence that FDR had actually made such a statement. However it first appeared in the November 15, 1948 issue of Time magazine and was later mentioned in a March 17, 1960 broadcast of CBS Reports called "Trujillo: Portrait of a Dictator". In this broadcast FDR made the statement in reference to Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic.
Since then the term "sonofabitchism" had come to euphemise the West's foreign policy of "pragmatic clientelism" - lending support to notorious despots across the globe, as long as they dance to its tune. Others, who don't, fear being ousted or ostricised.
During the Cold War the rule of Iran's Shah, Cambodia's Lon Nol, Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Mobutu Sese Seko had "led to long-term insecurity and disorder." In the post-Cold War era, with a rising China and a resurgent Russia, the US is grateful to staunch allies - the Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the Saudi king Salman, the Uzbek president Islam Karimov etc. - in restive regions. Palacio says Western leaders are "willing" to accept "any son of a bitch who can impose stability, whatever the cost."
When it comes to Bashar al-Assad, it wouldn't surprise at all if Vladimir Putin told his cabinet in private that Assad "may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." That the West, especially the US has been quiet about Assad's stepping down is "based on a false dichotomy between autocracy and instability." However they settle for a transition of power with him, while excluding any prospect of letting him to stay in office.
It's true that Western leaders lack "the patience and dedication needed" in light of the conflict in Syria. Their terms of office are limited and they tend to seek instant solutions, because they are all obsessed with "their own importance" and they want to leave a great legacy. The civil war in Syria has displaced millions who are trying to reach Europe. They believe that keeping Assad - at least for a while - would bring stability.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Oct 29, 2015

Very true!

In the case of Syria, and perhaps based on lessons learned from Libya, the "despotic temptation" might come from the simplistic observation that the cure is less good than the disease, to the tune of several million people whose homes are destroyed.

In this context, calls for a despot are a form of "triage" -- The choice is an inherently unpleasant one to make. Unpleasant, that is, to anyone with half a conscience. I am not sure whether this includes any of the politicians and statesmen on either side of the debate.

Ultimately, an increase in the priority level of the principle of democracy and respect for human rights may be necessary.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are other recent examples to examine.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Oct 29, 2015

The choices made by Western leaders should lead to the question - Do they themselves understand the qualities needed for effective governance?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 29, 2015

America wants to project power in international affairs. America wants to hold the moral high ground in international affairs. Sooner or later these come into conflict. I think the best would be that America keep the moral high ground and stop projecting power. It is a fallacy that American interventions keeps Americans safe at home. Rather, it breeds an ever growing population of people willing to risk their life to cause injury to Americans.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Wallace Oct 29, 2015

There's quite a bit more to it in the case of Muslim majority countries. That introduces the religious dynamic of questioning the basic legitimacy of any form of government that is not Islamic, or even whether nation states in the region should even exist, preferring a global caliphate (see current affairs). This is all called for in the faith, and should be no surprise to someone like Ms. Palacio. Repeating feel-good solutions that eschew analysis does no one any favors.
- jagjeet sinha Oct 29, 2015
  
  An extremely insightful and fundamental observation - that renders the existence of nation states in the limbo.
  Subject to a Global Caliphate - based on Sectarianism, without ensuring governance benchmarks within.
  The equilibrium that perhaps is the Eldorado - based on Democracy, Good Governance, Global Growth or Multilateralism.
  That no Global Caliphate ever espoused - history cannot be changed.
  Perhaps the best use of America's global power : A Global Caliphate of Democracies - elected Leadership, accountable multilaterally.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Martin Oct 29, 2015

It is what I have been arguing forever, but no one understands in the outside world. Our president does not have the power to wield foreign policy power, unless he has a majority in Congress. The Republican Party has adopted a strategy of winning in state elections, within the U.S., giving them a majority in Congress, and therefore, foreign policy power.
President Obama, a Democrat, must navigate the domestic rivers of money and power (the financiers of the state political puppets and untra-conservative religious fanatics, ) who brainwash dumbed down local ignorant voting citizens to the realities of the citizens of the outside world, due to scare tactics and hate speech (uber-scare and hate propaganda towards African-Americans, Muslims, Socialists, etc.,) .
In attempting to create programs and safety nets for domestic minorities , the poor working class and the dwindling middle-class, the president must sacrifice some of his political capital to influence foreign policy in all areas he would wish to influence.
It all boils down to the fact that what is hurting citizens of the world, is also what hurts citizens in the United States; the ultra-rich entering politics at lower state level els, forging their way into power on the foreign policy stage and then creating systems of psychological control of the electorate, which contribute to the demise of humanity; nationally and internationally. We fix this problem, we solve the problems of the world. To insist,ignorantly, that the State representive (President or Prime Minister) simply represents the whole, and that the State leaders are not influenced strongly by domestic forces more than ANYTHING ELSE, is reckless and disingenuous.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 29, 2015

Another thoughtful and well presented argument from Ms. Palacio. I think it's important to recognize though that "Western leaders" aren't the only protagonists that "lack the patience and dedication needed to act consistently and humbly" in these dramas. Political nature too abhors a vacuum that someone will, by some means, seek to fill.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Can Calhan Oct 28, 2015

The main issue is reliability of countries have been claiming to be the champion of democracy. As they have been using the standards of democracy to interfere with, criticise or accuse some countries they have been friends of many undemocratic countries. This hypocritical political behaviour caused the lost of trust among public to believe in sincerity of countries demanding the rule of democracy. Example; Syria was not less democratic than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, and even current Turkey. So acting with undemocratic countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) to established a civic army with all types of weapons to fight against a established army to introduce democracy was a tragic irony. Democracy is not a fashion-culture to appear and disappear within short period of time. Democracy is a social. cultural and institutional transformation requires a process which can be supported through help of educational, economic, social and institutional improvements to enable the transformation easier and lasting. Since democracy is not a object/meta it can't be exported and imported.
- David Martin Oct 29, 2015
  
  AGREE! :-)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Oct 28, 2015

'prolonged governance assistance' in support of a transition to a consensual self-governing mode is an illusion. It never worked anywhere. The energy for change from a dictatorship to a more consensual, possibly democratic and law-based system of government has to come from within a society. Only if and when a critical mass of elite and population can create the momentum for change, then change can happen and can additionally be supported from the outside. Interventionism is wrong-headed.
- David Martin Oct 29, 2015
  
  Absolutely! :-)
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Qe9BpkUzh

专制的诱惑

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

专制的诱惑

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification