|
October 14, 2006 | It is tomorrow in the UK as this post lands in the CSE server for publication. In the Sunday Times, Ian Bremmer has published a discussion on the absurd policies of the United States toward North Korea, Iran and other nations under authoritarian regimes. The crux of the article seeks to establish that a policy of further isolation of such authoritarian regimes aids and abets the authoritarian elite in maintaining control of their subjects.
While the article promotes a policy that may well be better advised over time, there appears to be a weakness in the discussion as regards how current and past U.S. policy sustains relations with authoritarian regimes. In current and past economic and cultural relationships between the U.S. and authoritarian regimes, the U.S. does not demonstrably interfere with oppressive policies within such regimes as long as those regimes are of benefit to the U.S. In the relationship with Saddam Hussein, where were the overwhelming objections to his gassing the Kurds in northern Iraq? Where were objections to his using chemical warfare against Iran? Where were objections to his brutal treatment of his own people? As long as Hussein did the bidding of U.S. interests, there were no limitations to what he could do internally to maintain power. In other instances, such as in Iran, the U.S. installed and supported an authoritarian elite with military aid in order to maintain their domestic power (under a guise of establishing regional power as well) - even if the maintenance of such power involves oppression. The raw concept of the proposals by Ian Bremmer are, however, logical and implementable - just not in the fashion the U.S. has historically applied such relations. If we isolate Kim, he'll get stronger -
"North Korea and other dictatorships remain stable because the West cuts them off..." says Ian Bremmer.
10.14.2006 |