« A visit to WHINSEC | Main | Does Colombia pass the "town square test"? »

January 23, 2005

Spreading liberty by arming dictators?

I know that the following isn't exactly on-topic for a Colombia weblog, but we're at a historic moment for U.S. foreign policy and some things just can't go unremarked.

For decades, many activists, scholars and groups like CIP have been calling for a U.S. foreign policy that promotes democracy. At the very least, we have called for a U.S. foreign policy that does not support tyranny around the world. Latin America in particular has seen far too much U.S.-supported tyranny, from the murderous military regimes of Central America, Argentina and Chile to pro-U.S. strongmen like Somoza, Trujillo, Duvalier and Fujimori.

If you take at face value the soaring rhetoric of his inaugural address, it would seem that President Bush has taken to heart at least the first part, about promoting democracy worldwide. “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world,” the president told us on Thursday.

Leave aside whether this is an after-the-fact justification for invading Iraq without WMDs. The idea of a U.S. foreign policy that actively supports democracy and opposes tyranny is something that we’ve been advocating for a very long time, and it’s good to hear a president say it so forcefully. When liberal internationalists like us have spoken like that, we’ve normally been rebuffed by self-proclaimed “realists” in power – usually in President Bush’s own party – who have insisted that promoting democracy (and its inseparable corollary, human rights) often runs counter to the security or economic interests of the United States. (Look no further than a touchstone document of the neoconservative movement, Jeane Kirkpatrick’s 1979 essay “Dictatorships and Double Standards.”)

We welcome Bush’s words. But we want to see some action. Putting his words into practice would require the president to do two things that, taken together, would represent a true revolution in U.S. foreign policy. First, he would have to tolerate elected leaders who oppose the United States (there are few of these, but Hugo Chávez is the obvious test case). Second, he would have to stop aiding dictators who support the United States.

Notice that I didn’t say “actively opposing” pro-U.S. dictators; neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer has a point when he argues that we can’t undermine dictators if it appears likely that whatever succeeds them would be either chaos or an even worse dictatorship. “In friendly dictatorships we push for democracy only up to the point of instability. We dare not risk regime change—yet,” Krauthammer contends.

But there’s a big difference between “not undermining” pro-U.S. dictatorships and actively propping them up, strengthening their instruments of repression by arming them and making them more lethal. The Bush administration continues to give massive amounts of military and police assistance to dictatorships worldwide, many of them Middle Eastern.

The amounts of military aid are more than you’d expect. You can look it up for yourself – not in the works of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, but in the documents and reports published online by our own Department of State. The list below is what you get when you juxtapose military aid and arms sales data (available in the State Department’s annual Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations) with assessments of how well recipient countries honor basic freedoms and tolerate dissent (from the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices).

There are other tyrannical regimes whose security forces get U.S. aid, but these are probably the largest amounts.

President Bush made quite a promise on Thursday. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors,” he said. “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” Next time you hear lofty rhetoric like this, think of the nations in the shameful list above. Those who “live in tyranny and hopelessness” in these countries are further from liberty, because the Bush administration is arming those who murder, jail and torture them.

 

 

Methodological note: I don’t include here a few smaller military-aid programs, such as Excess Defense Articles or Defense Department engagement programs, which would make military aid figures for 2003 slightly larger.

I used one government report in addition to the two mentioned above in order to estimate arms sales: the “Section 655” report available on the website of the Federation of American Scientists. This report provides data for the licensing of arms sold from U.S. companies to foreign governments. Not all of these licenses are fulfilled, so actual deliveries of weapons may be fewer; the sales figure I quote nonetheless indicates the amount of sales for which the U.S. government gave approval.

Meanwhile, this list doesn’t include dictatorships that don’t get aid but do a lot of business with us, such as China or Equatorial Guinea. Nor does it include aid to the militaries of countries that elect their leaders but routinely violate human rights with impunity, such as Israel, Indonesia, Nigeria – or, of course, Colombia.

Posted by isacson at January 23, 2005 04:40 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ciponline.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41

Comments

Mr. Bush and his new SecState are just full of rhetoric at the moment, to keep it in simple terms...strong aid and business/military ties with the countries mentioned will continue because of strategic geopolitical interests, more or less like in the time of the Cold War. Not much else is new.

Even if the specific cases of say, Israel and Colombia are somewhat different and more complex (outright dictatorship and full-scale indiscriminate and state mandated violence and/or repression don't really apply to either case, except in the minds of extremists), the basic, underlying reasoning is quite similar.

The U.S. government believes that it really needs these elected or unelected, unfree or partly free, governments/leaders/regimes to stay on its good side, for several reasons, and thus it's willing to at least partially look the other way...and apparently so does more than half of the U.S. population (by a small margin, granted).

...I've be hardpressed to find a truly "good thing" coming out of that inauguration speech.

Of course, this isn't just due to Bush...these policies have been around for decades, and while Kerry may have made some changes here and there and turned up the heat a bit on some of the relevant rulers involved, but he definitely wouldn't have turned things around completely, when key U.S. interests are at stake (or perceived to be, in the future).


Posted by: jcg at January 24, 2005 09:36 PM

You're probably right - "more of the same" is what we're likely to see over the next few years, for the reasons you mention.

Nonetheless, the inaugural speech has left a lot of people in Washington scratching their heads, because it does hint at a significant new departure - an ambitious, perhaps over-ambitious policy along the lines of Mark Palmer's Breaking the Axis of Evil. Or is it just new packaging for the same policies we've already seen?

It's remarkable how administration officials have sought to downplay the content of the speech. How remarkable in particular that they've even trotted out Bush's father in an effort to minimize the speech's significance.

The recent backpedaling - "oh, he didn't really mean it like that" - is awfully embarrassing and an inauspicious start to Bush 2. Sorry about that, would-be Saudi or Uzbek dissidents...

Posted by: Adam Isacson [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 25, 2005 09:08 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?