Armando over at Daily Kos wondersBut the more interesting question to me is what is BushCo up to here? What are they trying to accomplish? Why get in the middle of this? Is this supposed to be part of the "democracy offensive"? Something else? Anybody have a clue? I sure don't.
Similarly, Praktike says
I'm not sure I quite understand the point of all of this deliberate eye-poking of the Russian bear here.
I should also note to their credit that both Armando and Praktike call the Russian position wrong. I'll throw out a few reasons why I think the president's visits to Latvia (and later Georgia) are the right move.
- If Bush had just visited Russia to celebrate WWII, it would have been seen as insensitive by the countries occupied by the Soviets. The US took a principled stand against the USSR's occupation of the Baltics through both Republican and Democratic administrations. We did not make a mistake in doing so, and we should not let the Russians today bully us into forgetting it.
- If the EU is on the rise as a global power, then Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are among our best allies along with Poland and the UK. Visiting and maintaining friendships in Europe is not something the president has done a great job at, but this visit is a good opportunity to do so.
- Let's remember that support for Eastern European democracies was originally a Clinton administration policy and a good one that has reaped benefits in terms of allies. It's good to see Bush not destroying a policy simply because Clinton supported it.
- How many times have we seen both conservatives and liberals complain that Bush gives too much credit to Putin (and his soul) and doesn't call him out on his repression of democracy in Russia and support for dictators in the region? I've definitely criticized Bush for that previously. Visiting Eastern European democracies that have broken away from the Russian sphere of influence in one way to criticize diplomatically.
- Yes Armando, this is part of the “democracy offensive”. Bush, the neo-cons and the Truman Democrats want to see democracy in the former Soviet Republics and it doesn't hurt to highlight the ones that have already made that transition. Visiting and rewarding emerging democracies is better than trying to do everything by force and coercion. I wish we saw more visits like this from the president.
The president is trying to find a difficult balance between respecting the Soviet contribution to WWII (which was enormous) and condemning the actions that came later. It's also a balance between working with Russia as a continuing world power and emerging democracy while still criticizing some of its recent internal and external policies.
Considering the fumbling on democracy issues that we see in the rest of the world (wasn't the president just holding hands with the leader of Saudi Arabia?), he and his team are showing surprising grace on this trip. If we could only manage this level of nuance and diplomacy in Western Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, Latin America and Africa, we'd be all set. But at least in one region, we're not doing so bad.
5 comments:
Yet this also goes back to the fundamental world view of Bush as seen through the Cold War prism.
Bush talks a great game about democracy, but remains silent about the continued imprisonment of Yvon Neptune without charge in Haiti, tries to kill the Darfur Accountability Act and equivocates with regard to Charles Taylor's facing justice.
I like the game Bush talks on democracy. I definitely wish he'd follow through on it and I wish the Democratic Party would hold him accountable when he doesn't.
Not sure I agree on the Cold War prism, although there are way too many old school advisors on his team and not enough new blood. And I definitely agree that there's room for improvement on a lot of democracy issues including the ones you mentioned.
Boz,
That has always been the big criticism of the US during the Cold War: the selective nature of criticism of communist governments while cozying up to repellent governments or softpedaling other HR abuses. A classic example is Islam Kerimov in Uzbekistan, not to mention Ilham Aliyev in Azerbaijan.
As for the Cold War prism argument, consider the appointments of Otto Reich, John Negroponte, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. To me it shows that he is bereft of imagination.
Plenty of countries, not just the US, are guilty of selective criticism. In no way do I mean to defend Bush as he supports some of these regimes. I'm simply saying that being guilty of selective criticism and praise does not mean that you're automatically wrong when you actually choose to speak up.
In the case of Eastern Europe, I think the US has done a good job through both the Clinton and Bush administrations, although I know others disagree.
Plenty of countries, not just the US, are guilty of selective criticism.
Well the US is the only superpower and we have a president who talks about democracy with every breath, but seems to make common cause with very undemocratic regimes. That speaks to the issue of credibility and while it doesn't one automatically wrong, it does make the selective use of this clamor for democracy seem motivated by needs that may very well have nothing to do with democracy and more to do with national interests.
Consistency is the hallmark of homesty in diplomatic relations. Those who remain skeptical of the Bush administration on the subject of democracy promotion (I count myself among them) are not being unreasonable when we find this inconsistency to be the sign of a lack of sincerity on the president's part.
Post a Comment