Pretty Good Speech, But …

I'm wondering what our "friends" in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Jordan and the like make of these lines:

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

I hope such "friends" are rushing out to consult scholars on how to establish constitutional republics ASAP, but I somehow doubt it. Nevertheless, I also hope that President Bush meant that he plans to implement something like the Reagan Doctrine to help oppressed people free themselves when he said:

So 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….Our goal … is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

Comments

[Warren]

Sounds Great I hope he starts with the United States... Oh wait.

[joe]

I wonder what his friends in the Family Research Council and Texas Republican Party make of, "America will not pretend...that women welcome humiliation and servitude."

[Gary Gunnels]

The speech sucked.

The Reagan Doctrine was terribly inconsistent and hypocritical; indeed, it had to be in order to be devoted to killing off the Soviet Union. Expect the same sort of thing from Bush.

[joe]

During the 1980s, dissidents in Eastern Europe could point to America and say, "There is another way," and their oppressors were reduced to arguing that our way was inferior.

Today, the oppressive governments can point to America and tell their people, "There is no other way. Even in America, they torture security threats and spy on their own people."

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Honestly, I think the Arab/Muslim world's interaction with Europe is going to be more important in the long run than what Bush tries to do there.

[Pavel]

Our goal ... is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

Unless, of course, those others live in an oppressive client state whose friendliness is essential to our military Westernize or Die campaign.

[joe]

From Bailey's old column, "Reagan's active support of insurgent movements in Central America, Africa and Central Asia was aimed at overthrowing Soviet client states and sapping Soviet resources. The policy worked although it must be admitted that it had some regrettable side effects (rogue rebels in Angola and creation of a cadre of rootless Mujahadeen in Afghanistan). But it worked. The Soviet Union is no more."

No, it didn't work, any more than my magic tiger-repelling rock explains the absence of tiger attacks in Massachusetts. This ode to rollback theory ignores the reality that Soviet Empire wasn't rolled back, but disintegrated from within. The Soviet Union collapsed because people there, from the man on the street to Mikhail Gorbachev, realized that the system didn't work, and determined to change it. If anything, Reagan's dirty wars only delayed the outcome his "City on a Hill" strategy aimed for, by harming our image in the eyes of would-be dissidents, and allowing the Soviet government to more effectively play the "Rally around the flag during time of war" card.

"What did the US do to cause the USSR to collapse?" is the rightist version of "What did the US do to make us so unpopular in the Muslim world?" The answer being, a few peripheral actions that didn't matter much. Not everything is about us.

[SPD]

...except for gay people, who can't adopt children.

[joe]

Gary, "Honestly, I think the Arab/Muslim world's interaction with Europe is going to be more important in the long run than what Bush tries to do there."

Good cop Bad cop?

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

No, cultural, etc. interaction.

I am largely in agreement with you; the USSR collapsed largely due to its own internal, self-made problems.

[Ultimate Fitness Program]

Some of the more hysterically anti-Bush posters here are quite amusing. I'm not sure how GWB has had the slightest affect on the ability of gays to adopt children. I'm also unaware of the exact extent of how tyrannical this nation has become, although there are always plenty of Chicken Littles exclaiming how the sky is falling whenever a new law is passed to make law enforcement a little more efficient ("Carnivore", anyone?).

[SPD]

Our bungled attempts to kill/oust Castro, the leader of an island dictatorship not more than 90 miles from the Florida Keys should serve as proof positive that covert intervention by the U.S. has at best a minimal effect -- if not ultimately, a detrimental one (see Afghanistan, Iran, etc.) --, and that far greater changes have been effected through economic means rather than military ones.

Cuba relies more on American money now than it did on Soviet money up until fourteen years ago. Castro's doing his best to suppress it, naturally, but as China's current situation demonstrates, nothing brings about ultimate defeat for communism better than capitalism.

Real changes are made over time, rather than by some ham-handed quickie war fought to appease those with even less patience than brains.

[SPD]

"I'm not sure how GWB has had the slightest affect on the ability of gays to adopt children."

You're right; wrong Bush brother. My bad. 🙂

[Les]

The Reagan Doctrine would have been even more impressive if it hadn't, in many places, relied on terrorism to help people "attain their own freedom."

[Gary Gunnels]

...not sure how GWB has had the slightest affect on the ability of gays to adopt children.

Bush has openly stated that he does not believe that gay people should be legally allowed to adopt children. He also opposed dismantling Texas' criminal statutes concerning consensual homosexual sex. Bush supported (when he was Governor) a Texas law that allows the state to take adopted children from gay and lesbian couples to place the kids with straight couples.

[Henry]

The Reagan Doctrine was very impressive--unless you were one of the tens of thousands of innocents massacred in the dirty wars of Central America. Or one of those eventually slaughtered by the great Afghan "freedom fighters".

Of course those not so slaughtered are quick to allow that "it was all worth it." Kinda hard to do when when you've been rotting in a mass grave, however.

[Gary Gunnels]

Bush may want to do a lot of good things, but he clearly doesn't believe in liberty for homosexuals.

[Ultimate Fitness Program]

Gary:

With the possible exception of the "Texas law" that you mentioned (which I suspect was actually an unpassed bill, unless you are stating that it has ever been the official policy of Texas to remove adopted children from gay households to place tehm with traditional families), the fact remains that GWB has done nothing to affect the ability of homosexuals to adopt children in this country, nor do I believe he has the power to do so.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ultimate Fitness Program,

As President and as Governor his mere opinion has increased or at the very least bolstered hostility towards gay adoption. So yes, even from that mimimalist perspective Bush's efforts have been harmful to homosexuals who wish to adopt.

Bush - to be frank - is the enemy (though not the only one of course) of homosexuals.

[Isaac Bartram]

Gary Gunnels

I believe Bush is whoring to public opinion on this rather than following personal principle. In my view this makes it even worse.

[Ultimate Fitness Program]

Gary:

Hmm. You make a good point, although I think you exaggerate the effect Bush has on the ability of homosexuals to adopt (I suppose I should mention that I am agnostic on the issue, although as the evidence comes in I am becoming convinced that it is no more harmful for a child to be raised by a loving homosexual couple than a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, I am an adult adoptee.)

[Eric II]

"The Soviet Union collapsed because people there, from the man on the street to Mikhail Gorbachev, realized that the system didn't work, and determined to change it."

True, but I think Reagan gave a big assist to these people. A Russian classmate once remarked that Gorbachev's reforms had more to do with gaining an upper hand in an internal power struggle than anything else. That is, by currying favor with the masses through perestroika, glasnost, etc., Gorbachev and his peers sought to strengthen their hold on power relative to the old guard.

By engaging the reformers (much to the consternation of the American hard right) after having demonized the hardliners, Reagan helped strengthen their position. Which in turn gave momentum to the reform process that wound up bringing down the system.

I think there's a parallel to be made here with the failure of America and Europe to achieve significant reform in Iran. Unlike their Soviet peers, America refused to engage the Iranian reformers at a time when they were ascendant. The Europeans, meanwhile, did engage, but refused to stand up to the Iranian hardliners (who had learned some lessons from the Soviet collapse) when they began cracking down. As a result of these twin mistakes, an opportunity for political change might have been lost.

[SPD]

"I believe Bush is whoring to public opinion on this rather than following personal principle."

Quite possibly. Would we expect less from any politician?

[trainwreck]

Ronald Reagan actually brought down the entire Soviet Union by swiftly dispatching the top KGB arm-wrestling champion during a secret match held in East Berlin to determine the champion of the world. Reagan also actually tore hunks of concrete out of the wall, and smashed his fist right throught it, using just his bare hands, to demonstrate his admonition to Mr. Gobuchev.

I read that somewhere and so now I believe it.

[joe]

Eric II, I agree. Reagan's deft handling of Warsaw Pact internal politics stands in sharp contrast, both morally and practically, to his stance in Latin America.

If Solidarity had existed in El Salvador rather than Poland, Reagan would have supported funding death squads to kill Lech Valdez.

[a]

"what our "friends" in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Jordan"

What about China? Oh right, they have nukes.

"that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies"

This coming from the biggest bully of them all is priceless.

[Ronald Bailey]

I'm convinced now--Clearly, the Soviets were merely misguided agrarian reformers who once they saw the errors of their ways (tens of millions dead) immediately set about changing their system all by themselves.

[joe]

Really Ron, I expect better.

[joe]

Yeah well yoor a nazi. *drool*

pathetic

[Ronald Bailey]

China is more of a "rival" than "friend," but as its people become wealthier, its trajectory from tyranny to relative freedom looks to follow that of South Korea and Taiwan.

[Ron Bailey]

Joe:

See below:

Today, the oppressive governments can point to America and tell their people, "There is no other way. Even in America, they torture security threats and spy on their own people."

Who wrote that? Expectations go both ways.

[joe]

So Vladimir Putin DOESN'T use Bush's endorsement of the Chechen War as part of the War on Terror to justify his abuses, Ron?

Bush's refusal to denounce Islam Karimov DOESN'T weaken the opposition's position?

You're knee's jerking.

[joe]

The Abu Ghraib photos DON'T make it harder for us to tout the virtues of liberal democracy and respect for human rights?

[Ron Bailey]

I'm happy to put Russia and Uzbekistan on that list of "friends."

[joe]

That's nice. Any chance of admitting that nothing I wrote bore any resemblance to "the Soviets were misguided agrarian reformers?"

[Ron Bailey]

Joe:

Will you admit that U.S. opposition to the Soviet expansion in the 1980s had something to do with the collapse of their regime? I think we'll have to agree to disagree, which is one of the things that a free country is all about.

[SPD]

The Soviets were defeated because they were outspent, otherwise the Cold Ware might still be going on right now. Neither side held an advantage over the other save for economic and (possibly) political systems.

Both nations could have easily destroyed all life on Earth with one push of a button. Who needs a greater advantage than that?

[North Korea]

The Soviet Union could very well not have collapsed.

If someone like Jimmy Carter, say Jimmy Carter had been president he would have bailed them out.

Why do I think that, you say?

Two words....

[thoreau]

I used to think that Communism was unsustainable because centralized planning is hopelessly inefficient.

[Matt]

I'm amazed that it took a commenter all of an hour and 54 minutes to cite Karimov - the all-purpose "dictator that we support, or at least don't condemn enough" - as proof that Bush doesn't really care about all that "freedom" rhetoric he keeps repeating:

"Bush's refusal to denounce Islam Karimov DOESN'T weaken the opposition's position?"

I'm not sure how one reaches the apparently contradictory conclusions that failure to denounce a dictator weakens the oppressed opposition, while broad rhetorical support for democracy is meaningless and ineffectual.

[Jason Ligon]

I really am libertarian in most ways, but the foreign policy bit strikes me as terribly convenient. Intervention never solves any problem. You don't need to prove anything, just argue that every positive outcome would have happened all by itself. There was no connection between the failures of communism and anything the west did. Assume the rate of decline were acceptable, assume that KGB installed despots would have no damaging effects, assume that the USSR would not have become increasingly aggressive absent a defeat at the hands of the Afghanistanis, and so on. Assume that sitting on your ass can only bring good consequences, and you can always create alternate histories that will suit you.

I am not saying that the Reagan doctrine was an indisputable good - there were certainly costs and benefits. It is just tiring to hear the supposition that everything would work out absent external factors repeated endlessly as though it were some sort of natural law. Despots can control large swaths of land thorugh terror for long periods of time. Saying that they will eventually fall isn't saying much. Pretending that they are not harmful in the meantime is dishonest.

[Eric II]

Had North Korea collapsed in the mid-'90s in the midst of its famine, I think it would've been a much different (and much messier) collapse than the one the Soviet Union saw.

As it is, I think Chinese aid (and more recently, South Korean aid) has done more to bolster the North Korean regime than any action taken by the US.

[Jason Ligon]

"I used to think that Communism was unsustainable because centralized planning is hopelessly inefficient."

Yeah, and monarchy isn't much better, nor theocracy. The trick is to make enough money to buy guns sufficient to terrorize everyone you rule. Kill a million here and there when you make the People's point, and there you go - lasting inefficiency.

[Pavel]

The Soviet Empire would have collapsed regardless what we did because their economy was simply dysfunctional. The only question is when.

The Reagan doctrine in Eastern Europe (with Thatcher playing no small part) undoubtedly hastened the collapse. There is no question in my mind, that Solidarity would likely have been crushed were it not for western support.

Latin America was another matter. It's too bad the Bush administration has learned all the wrong lessons from this period of history.

[Russ D]

joe and Ron,

Why do you insist that the collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of the activity of only one front? Isn't it probable that goading the USSR to overspend AND the internal pressure that they already were overspending and couldn't rip off the citizens any more (and other factors) led the collapse? The whole notion of trying to assign more importance to one or the other is rather ignorant.

[Pavel]

Ironically, it was Russia's own industrialization that doomed her. There was no compromise position with respect to privatizing state industries. Thus the political reforms were largely meaningless. Even towards the very end, private ownership was literally 1% of the economy. So the Soviet empire was doomed from rather early on.

That was never the case with China and North Korea because these were largely agrarian societies. This allowed for effective half measures.

I don't think any economist would tell you, in retrospect, that there was a serious threat of the Soviets *not* imploding.

[joe]

Matt, you must have misunderstood. I'm arguing that broad rhetorical support for democracy is VERY effectual. My position is that a "City on the Hill" policy is the best way to promote liberalization, and played a role in the collapse of the Soviet empire.

But you see, Bush hasn't provided "broad rhetorical support" for democracy or reform in Uzbekistan. Quite the opposite, he has made it clear that he considers Karimov a friend and ally, and didn't say squat about the Saddam-style elections that took place there - all the while providing concrete evidence, in the form of money and weapons, that he supports the oppressive regime.

I like Bush's adoption of the "tear down this wall!" strategy. I'm just unhappy that he undermines this strategy by crawling into bed with the very dictators whose victims could potentially be bolstered by such a strategy.

[joe]

Russ, I'm not minimizing the role that the Soviets' inability to afford to keep up in the arms race played in making rapproachment and reform inevitable. The convential forces in Europe, the Air Force continually improving their capabilities, Afghanistan - all of these provided opportunities to compel the Soviets to spend more than they could afford.

But the Latin American and African fights were small potatoes. It was the superpowers going head to head where our war of economic attrition was won, not in the paltry sums that went to El Salvador and Angola.

[joe]

Ron, other than Afghanistan, where our efforts were focused on the main body of Soviet forces rather than a small client on an allowance, I don't believe resistance to Soviet expansion in the 1980s played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Empire...

...other than the benefits of containment, which stretches back to the 40s. If the Communists has actually succeeded in taking over the world, the Soviet empire probably wouldn't have collapsed. But what that achieved was statis. The actual revolution that brought down the system had nothing to do with Nicaragua.

[raymond]

imo, It was Dallas which in large part brought about the collapse of the USSR.

[joe]

GG, following the lead of native, genuine opposition movements was an important part of how the "City on a Hill" strategy worked. Stating that Reagan (and John Paul II) were reacting to internal Polish events doesn't refute the point that their reactions influenced how those internal dynamics played out.

This contrasts sharply, btw, to both the Contras and the Chalabi crew.

[Russ D]

joe,

All I'm sayin' is when you get into arguments about which straw broke the camel's back, the most truthful answer is "all of them". I know that takes the fun out of the debate, but I'm not much fun these days.

[joe]

Look, down on the factory floor! It's a forklift! It's a block of pig iron! It's...it's...

[joe]

Russ, arguing about straws is all well and good when the camel collapses under a pile of straws. When it's got a refridgerator strapped to its hump, and a couple straws on top of that, not so much.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Actually they didn't. The Reagan administration never really appreciated what was going on in Poland and gave up on Solidarity once the crack-down took place. It was pretty fucking boneheaded and cynical on their part. After the fact claims of influence have prejudiced the true historical record. The Reagan administration did shit for the Poles. I suggest that you read Norman Davies on these issues. The cluelessness of the Reagan administration regarding Poland is just obvious from his analysis (keep in mind this was the same administration that falsely or cynically saw Nicolae Ceausescu as a "reformer," when he was more of a monster than almost any of the Communist regimes that inhabited Eastern Europe at the time).

When it comes to the downfall of the USSR, the actions of the Poles are of paramount importance.

Raymond,

I've known many a former citizen of a Communist state who has said similar things about the products of "Western" culture generally. From Chanel to Levis to the lowly tampon, these were the things that were impressed on me as important factors in the loss of faith.

[eponymous]

looks like the patrons of this once-libertarian journal are still not behind The Freedom President

so glad this event came around to give you another taste of shit sandwich

[Andrew]

joe

"not everything is about us"

Quite so. I submit that the civil wars in central America had less to do with US than the norte-american "experts" supposed. Same with the Pinochet coup in Chile, which simply would have occurred three years earlier absent Kissinger. If you wish to look for a meddler and trouble-maker, look to Castro.

It is hard to picture the collapse of the Soviet Union amidst a string of periodic foreign policy successes such as Nixon and Carter handed them during the Breznev era. Expanding societies - even clunky ones - don't collapse. Let North Korea conquer the South and I don't forsee the imminent collapse of Jong.

I don't imagine one dissident anywhere _ even or especially in Uzbekistan- thinks it is a bad thing Bush promotes democracy anywhere he does...say, the Ukraine, or Iraq. Would they really be better off, if Bush was as universally oblivious to tyrrany as Clinton?

[matthew hogan]

Accurate platitudes + crusader ambitions = failed idiotic policy

[Ron Bailey Fan]

Damn.

Ron Bailey owns you, joe. What's it feel like to get owned so badly?

Dude, you're Ron Bailey's bitch: say his name, joe! Say it!

Ooooowned.

[Les]

Andrew,

If you wish to look for a meddler and trouble-maker, look to Castro.

You're absolutely right about Castro. But it doesn't mean that we didn't train and arm soldiers and terrorists who tortured and murdered dissidents and their families in the tens of thousands. Because it's really rather well documented that we did. I think that counts as "meddling" and "trouble-making."

[Kevin]

I'm wondering what our "friends" in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Jordan and the like make of these lines:

What will they think of the speech? Nothing, because they will know that the speech doesn't apply to them.

[Les]

Andrew,

Same with the Pinochet coup in Chile, which simply would have occurred three years earlier absent Kissinger.

Do you think that it should be the policy of the U.S. to assist in the overthrow of legally elected governments? Do you think Kissinger was justified when, in order to decrease the obstacles to a military coup, he arranged for the kidnapping of General Rene Schneider, the conservative (politically opposed to Allende) Chief of the Chilean General Staff, and then paid his kidnappers after they had killed him? Don't you agree that this counts as "meddling" and "trouble-making?"

[joe]

GG, interesting comments on Reagan's support (or non-support) for Solidarity. I'll have to check that out.

Andrew, very broad brush there about Latin America. Obviously, in Hondorus, our intervention was central - after an election and change of administration, we put together a coup. In Nicaragua, we basically put together a mercenary army and pretended it was an indigineous resistance grouop. In other cases, we were more reactive to the internal doings of those countries.

I also agree that the effectiveness of containment was crucial to setting the stage for the reform and revolution of the 80s. It's odd that you would single out Carter, though - he began both the military buildup and support for the Afghan muj (back when we were into that kind of thing) that really overtaxed the Soviet's military capacity. In my opinion, this became possible because of the end of the great, expensive, peripheral distraction that was the Vietnam War.

"Would they really be better off, if Bush was as universally oblivious to tyrrany as Clinton?" You mean, the president who actually went to war with a communist country in support of freedom-seeking seperatists, and in doing so caused its communist tyrant to be booted from office and arrested for war crimes? THAT Clinton?

[What a country!]

I would submit that Yakov Smirnoff doesn't get enough credit for his contribution to the collapse of the USSR.

How could the average Soviet citizen maintain faith in their system while facing the overwhelming success of Branson, MO's #1 comic?

[joe]

On Hit and Run, bloggers comment about you!