Talking to Tyrants
So Nancy Pelosi was in Syria recently, and the White House is upset about it. Well, leaving aside that they're right to be for political reasons (the executive runs foreign policy, not the legislature) it raises the other, broader question -- should democratic powers talk to undemocratic ones?
I think it depends on what you want, and what you expect to come from it. The problem with undemocratic or tyrannical regimes is that they tend to view power as a zero-sum game. In other words, power to them means 'I win, you lose', or 'you win, I lose'. It does not mean, and never will mean 'let's put our differences aside and work for the greater good', or even the much-loved 'win win scenario'. Because this is the nature of such regimes. Hitler did not share power. Stalin did not. Saddam did not, and Bashar al-Asad of Syria will not. Why not?
Because within a rigid, authoritarian power structure, there is no mechanism for power sharing.
In this sense, tyrants like Asad are actually correct in their judgement. If you're going to run an authoritarian system, you have to run it properly, and that means stamping out dissent. There's a long list of authoritarian political models that collapsed as soon as they began to tolerate dissent -- the USSR after Gorbachev, Iran after the Shah began loosening his grip at America's behest, most recently the Ukraine, before that Serbia, etc. Once you let political pluralism get its foot in the door, that's it, and the collapse is on. This no-tolerance attitude to alternative power structures naturally extends to foreign policy too, and while Nancy Pelosi might not know this, Bashar al-Asad certainly does. For him, there is no happy, peaceful accomodation to be made with America, Israel, democratic Lebanon or least of all democratic Iraq, just as there is no peaceful accomodation to be made toward his regime's critics within Syria. Either he wins and they lose, or vice-versa. He knows very well that successful democracy in Lebanon and Iraq will eventually destroy his regime, just as democracy in Damascus would.
Just as the mullahs in Iran know that political pluralism in Iran will surely destroy their's. The Iranian mullahs aren't scared of American force, they're scared of MTV, blue jeans and Playboy. They know that liberal culture is constantly attacking their rigid system, as surely as smart bombs can attack their military installations -- except that where bombs may only serve to unite the population behind the mullahs, liberal culture will pull them apart. In this era of globalisation, autocratic regimes everywhere are under constant assault from liberal ideas. The leaders of these regimes understand that these attacks can destroy them, and fight back accordingly. Autocracy and liberalism may have coexisted in previous eras, but with globalisation that's changing, with one system automatically seeking to destroy the other, either from without or within. The two systems just don't mix any longer, and that's a big part of the current turmoil in the mid-east today.
And that's the problem of negotiating with a guy like Asad. Sure, he may grant short-term concessions to buy time for his next attack, but in the long term, he'll always be the west's enemy because he knows very well that any success for the west in his region will spell destruction for his regime. North Korea's another great example -- I think the Bush Administration was probably right to sign their most recent deal, since it's a good thing to take North Korea out of the nuclear loop to isolate Iran even further, but I can't imagine anyone in the White House believes there's any chance that the North Koreans will stick to it out of simple good faith. American liberalism is like a toxic disease to the North Korean regime, one sniff could be fatal. They don't make peace with America because they can't, not if they want their regime to survive in its present, ideologically pure form.
Sadly, Pelosi and co don't seem to realise the brutal realities of power half as well as the tyrants do. So again, should western nations talk to Syria? Sure, but only if we're aware of all of the above, and aren't kidding ourselves. Threats are 'talking'... but threats can be made by back channels, where most 'talks' between the west and nations like Syria go on. In that sense, we already are talking, just out of sight, and not very politely. What Pelosi is suggesting is 'Let's be friends!' And 'Let's put all this behind us!'
The worst bit is, she doesn't seem to understand why the proposition is so ludicrous. A regime like Syria, by its very nature, is in a perpetual state of low-level war against America. It's not that it chose that state of war, and can subsequently be talked out of it -- it's that being what it is, IT HAD NO OTHER CHOICE. You can't talk a hyena into being more like a lion. Yes, the Syrian people are very friendly, it's a fascinating civilisation, I'd personally love to visit one day. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Syria's political position vis-a-vis America, and it's alarming that Pelosi should seem to imply otherwise, with her photo-ops with friendly locals in the streets of Damascus. The differences that matter are political, not cultural. And until Syria begins to transform itself politically, I can't see that there's much the White House can talk about with them beyond the current threats and warnings.
I think it depends on what you want, and what you expect to come from it. The problem with undemocratic or tyrannical regimes is that they tend to view power as a zero-sum game. In other words, power to them means 'I win, you lose', or 'you win, I lose'. It does not mean, and never will mean 'let's put our differences aside and work for the greater good', or even the much-loved 'win win scenario'. Because this is the nature of such regimes. Hitler did not share power. Stalin did not. Saddam did not, and Bashar al-Asad of Syria will not. Why not?
Because within a rigid, authoritarian power structure, there is no mechanism for power sharing.
In this sense, tyrants like Asad are actually correct in their judgement. If you're going to run an authoritarian system, you have to run it properly, and that means stamping out dissent. There's a long list of authoritarian political models that collapsed as soon as they began to tolerate dissent -- the USSR after Gorbachev, Iran after the Shah began loosening his grip at America's behest, most recently the Ukraine, before that Serbia, etc. Once you let political pluralism get its foot in the door, that's it, and the collapse is on. This no-tolerance attitude to alternative power structures naturally extends to foreign policy too, and while Nancy Pelosi might not know this, Bashar al-Asad certainly does. For him, there is no happy, peaceful accomodation to be made with America, Israel, democratic Lebanon or least of all democratic Iraq, just as there is no peaceful accomodation to be made toward his regime's critics within Syria. Either he wins and they lose, or vice-versa. He knows very well that successful democracy in Lebanon and Iraq will eventually destroy his regime, just as democracy in Damascus would.
Just as the mullahs in Iran know that political pluralism in Iran will surely destroy their's. The Iranian mullahs aren't scared of American force, they're scared of MTV, blue jeans and Playboy. They know that liberal culture is constantly attacking their rigid system, as surely as smart bombs can attack their military installations -- except that where bombs may only serve to unite the population behind the mullahs, liberal culture will pull them apart. In this era of globalisation, autocratic regimes everywhere are under constant assault from liberal ideas. The leaders of these regimes understand that these attacks can destroy them, and fight back accordingly. Autocracy and liberalism may have coexisted in previous eras, but with globalisation that's changing, with one system automatically seeking to destroy the other, either from without or within. The two systems just don't mix any longer, and that's a big part of the current turmoil in the mid-east today.
And that's the problem of negotiating with a guy like Asad. Sure, he may grant short-term concessions to buy time for his next attack, but in the long term, he'll always be the west's enemy because he knows very well that any success for the west in his region will spell destruction for his regime. North Korea's another great example -- I think the Bush Administration was probably right to sign their most recent deal, since it's a good thing to take North Korea out of the nuclear loop to isolate Iran even further, but I can't imagine anyone in the White House believes there's any chance that the North Koreans will stick to it out of simple good faith. American liberalism is like a toxic disease to the North Korean regime, one sniff could be fatal. They don't make peace with America because they can't, not if they want their regime to survive in its present, ideologically pure form.
Sadly, Pelosi and co don't seem to realise the brutal realities of power half as well as the tyrants do. So again, should western nations talk to Syria? Sure, but only if we're aware of all of the above, and aren't kidding ourselves. Threats are 'talking'... but threats can be made by back channels, where most 'talks' between the west and nations like Syria go on. In that sense, we already are talking, just out of sight, and not very politely. What Pelosi is suggesting is 'Let's be friends!' And 'Let's put all this behind us!'
The worst bit is, she doesn't seem to understand why the proposition is so ludicrous. A regime like Syria, by its very nature, is in a perpetual state of low-level war against America. It's not that it chose that state of war, and can subsequently be talked out of it -- it's that being what it is, IT HAD NO OTHER CHOICE. You can't talk a hyena into being more like a lion. Yes, the Syrian people are very friendly, it's a fascinating civilisation, I'd personally love to visit one day. But that has absolutely nothing to do with Syria's political position vis-a-vis America, and it's alarming that Pelosi should seem to imply otherwise, with her photo-ops with friendly locals in the streets of Damascus. The differences that matter are political, not cultural. And until Syria begins to transform itself politically, I can't see that there's much the White House can talk about with them beyond the current threats and warnings.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home