30 September 2001

Dictatorships and Double Standards

I've long been a fan of Robert Kaplan, not because I always agree with his analysis, but because he travels to places most people are scared to go, observes socio-political phenomena that most journalists simply miss, and makes some great connections. His books are a real treat.

I've written previously about Kaplan's Atlantic Monthly article suggesting that Pakistan may be another Yugoslavia in the making. Kaplan's L.A. Times op-ed today reiterates that position, and argues that the U.S. might be well advised to handle General Musharraf a little better than it has in the past:

President Bush is now in the awful position of having responsibility for a war on terrorism without having the ability to control many of the events that will occur within it. Nevertheless, he should eschew Clinton's self-righteous morality of intent and pursue instead a Churchillian morality of consequence in the Middle East and South Asia. Refusing to shake the hand of a military dictator showed good intentions. But leaders who bear responsibility for large groups of people like Clinton, and now Bush, must know that if a policy isn't successful, it cannot be virtuous. And the public humiliation of an enlightened, pro-Western leader--even one not democratically elected--in such a difficult part of the world is a mistake.

That advice reminded me of a seminal article written by Jeanne Kirkpatrick for Commentary in 1979, entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (unfortunately not available online anywhere, as far as I can tell). The article would provide the intellectual underpinnings of some of the Reagan doctrine (although Reagan's views on foreign policy had been shaped by Bill Van Cleave prior to 1979). In the article, Kirkpatrick took the Carter Administration to task for its obsessive focus on human rights, a focus that led the U.S., in her view, to abandon valuable strategic allies led by right-wing authoritarians in favor of ideological purity. The problem, Kirkpatrick contended, was that most of those former allies abandoned or pressured on human rights issues inevitably became left-wing totalitarian regimes that were entirely hostile to the United States. She contended that this served neither U.S. strategic interests nor the cause of human rights. She further contended that left-wing authoritarian governments never evolve into democratic regimes devoted to the rule of law, whereas right-wing authoritarian regimes have been known to do so.

A number of pundits, many of them very good on law and politics and even some aspects of international politics, have argued that the U.S. should pressure Pakistan into doing its bidding, and to remind the nation of its "undemocratic" nature if it resists. They would do well to revisit (or maybe read for the first time) that original Kirkpatrick article, which seems wholly applicable to Pakistan and even Jordan in light of recent events. Some pundits seem to be motivated by the same well-meaning Wilsonian idealism (or naivete?) that served Jimmy Carter's administration so poorly. Now, the stakes are even higher than they were for Carter, given the potential -- as Kaplan sees it, and I share his assessment -- for the descent of Pakistan and its nuclear capability into warlordism. Given that potential, this might not be the time for the United States to whine about elections in Pakistan.

[Posted @ 12:11 PM CST]