Bush and the tyrants
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In response to Obama's suggestion that, as president, he would talk and negotiate with enemies of the United States -- a very sensible component of a very sensible approach to foreign policy (taking and negotiating, from a position of strength, are not the same as giving in or surrendering and are not at all reflective of weakness; diplomacy can be a powerful and effective tool, can be combined with other, more aggressive approaches on a case-by-case basis, and would bolster America's legitimacy and credibility, and hence power and influence, around the world) -- President Bush on Thursday declared, seemingly without even the tiniest shread of self-awareness or irony, that sitting down with and having one's picture taken with a tyrant only serves to support that tyrant's position insofar as American recognition is somehow conferred on that tyrant through the president's act of sitting down with the tyrant. In other words, if Bush were to sit down with Raul Castro, Castro and his tyranny (his brother's tyranny, that is) would somehow be granted American approval.
Bush is wrong, of course. It is one thing to make friends with a tyrant -- remember the famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, for example? -- quite another to talk and negotiate. But Bush is also, as he so often is, hypocritical. Approval -- or recognition as an equal -- need not come into it. One can sit down with a tyrant while also calling the tyrant a tyrant. And this is surely what Obama means. He would sit down with Castro, say, without approving of Cuban tyranny. He would only talk to the tyrant, not confer legitimacy upon the tyranny.
The problem with Bush -- one of many problems -- is that he doesn't seem to get any of this. And it isn't so much that his world is so black-and-white that he simply refuses to talk to or negotiate with tyrants. Because he actually does it all the time. Maybe not to or with Castro or Ahmadinejad, say, but he is a friend, a close friend, of many tyrants around the world. And, in so doing, he does confer legitimacy upon them, does provide them with America's stamp of approval. He talks about freedom and democracy, and about the evildoers who must be destroyed, but the hollowness of his high-falutin' rhetoric is glaring. Indeed, throughout his presidency he has consisently undermined America's credibility around the world, not to mention his own credibility, by forming alliances with tyrants and tyrannies -- solid friendships with some, convenient relations with others. And here, just to prove the point, are four notable examples:
In response to Obama's suggestion that, as president, he would talk and negotiate with enemies of the United States -- a very sensible component of a very sensible approach to foreign policy (taking and negotiating, from a position of strength, are not the same as giving in or surrendering and are not at all reflective of weakness; diplomacy can be a powerful and effective tool, can be combined with other, more aggressive approaches on a case-by-case basis, and would bolster America's legitimacy and credibility, and hence power and influence, around the world) -- President Bush on Thursday declared, seemingly without even the tiniest shread of self-awareness or irony, that sitting down with and having one's picture taken with a tyrant only serves to support that tyrant's position insofar as American recognition is somehow conferred on that tyrant through the president's act of sitting down with the tyrant. In other words, if Bush were to sit down with Raul Castro, Castro and his tyranny (his brother's tyranny, that is) would somehow be granted American approval.
Bush is wrong, of course. It is one thing to make friends with a tyrant -- remember the famous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, for example? -- quite another to talk and negotiate. But Bush is also, as he so often is, hypocritical. Approval -- or recognition as an equal -- need not come into it. One can sit down with a tyrant while also calling the tyrant a tyrant. And this is surely what Obama means. He would sit down with Castro, say, without approving of Cuban tyranny. He would only talk to the tyrant, not confer legitimacy upon the tyranny.
The problem with Bush -- one of many problems -- is that he doesn't seem to get any of this. And it isn't so much that his world is so black-and-white that he simply refuses to talk to or negotiate with tyrants. Because he actually does it all the time. Maybe not to or with Castro or Ahmadinejad, say, but he is a friend, a close friend, of many tyrants around the world. And, in so doing, he does confer legitimacy upon them, does provide them with America's stamp of approval. He talks about freedom and democracy, and about the evildoers who must be destroyed, but the hollowness of his high-falutin' rhetoric is glaring. Indeed, throughout his presidency he has consisently undermined America's credibility around the world, not to mention his own credibility, by forming alliances with tyrants and tyrannies -- solid friendships with some, convenient relations with others. And here, just to prove the point, are four notable examples:
Labels: George W. Bush, tyranny, U.S. foreign policy
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
1:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home