Tyrant-osaurus Not
When is a tyrant not a tyrant? The answer apparently has to do with oil, money and politics. Of course, this trinity is the answer to most questions in our world today. The dramatis personae of the world’s heroes and villains changes as fast as Hillary’s position on NAFTA. However, for today, listing the really bad guys is easy – Fidel Castro, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They all have the requisite beards required by Central Casting. Two are Muslim and one is an old-school communist.
Castro is no doubt a bad guy. However, his new BF, Hugo Chavez, is only mildly annoying, according to the current administration, even though he called President Bush “Satan.” We enforce a decades old embargo on Cuba, yet trade freely with Venezuela. It might be an over-simplification to say it’s because Venezuela is our fourth largest provider of oil, while Florida’s decisive electoral votes are decided by anti-Castro Cuban expatriates. Wait a minute, no it’s not.
You know, now that I think about it, it just might not be an accident that food exports were exempted from the embargo and allowed to flow to Cuba in 2000. Maybe it was not for humanitarian reasons, but because it was an election year in which the agricultural Mid-west played a key role.
Meanwhile, the bad guys in China are enjoying the world’s spotlight of the Olympics despite horrific human rights abuses against Tibetans, Christians and political dissidents. Is it possible we look the other way because $502 billion of our foreign debt is held by Chinese banks and we have a $250 million a year trade deficit with a “communist” country? Maybe Wal-Mart and U.S. manufacturers need the cheap and free labor supply created by a corrupt regime using political prisoners and oppressed workers to ensure “every day low prices.”
I know Nixon and Bush Sr. (who served as Ambassador to China) felt that the way to defeat totalitarianism in China was through constructive engagement to bring them to capitalism and democracy in a peaceful manner. My question is, “Why is this true only for China and not Cuba?”
As for the Muslim villains, it’s cut and dried. We’ve been told Muslim fanatics are a direct threat to freedom and democracy. Yet, we understand the difference between good Muslims and bad Muslims.
Good Muslims are those in Saudi Arabia who allow our military bases and provide us with cheap oil (when they need us).
Good Muslims are those in Kuwait who are brutalized by bad ones like Saddam Hussein. Even President Bush is happy to be seen with the Good Ones. Who can forget the photos of him strolling from his helicopter holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah in the most public display of affection since Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah’s couch?
This is the same King who has women publicly beheaded for driving a car or disobeying their husbands. Brings to mind the time Bush’s daddy went into Kuwait to “save democracy” while conveniently forgetting that the country was run by a King who ruled by strict Islamic Law.
And forget about understanding our policies regarding North Korea, which vacillates between “axis of evil” member and “misunderstood hermit kingdom,” depending on the availability of U.S. troops in the region.
Obviously, our approaches to dealing with these countries are influences by the realpolitik of the moment. However, when you are sporting an Old Glory bumper sticker on your gas-guzzler on the way to Wal-Mart to buy a new TV to watch the Beijing Olympics, understand that you may be supporting the very thing you supposedly despise.
Relative morality is a geo-political fact. We allied with Stalin to fight Hitler, then Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, then Shiite fanatics to fight Bin Laden. We are currently recruiting Sunni fanatics to help fight Shiite Iran.
I just hope people understand that once we make these decisions, the moral high ground and our sense of ethical superiority are no longer really the foundations of our foreign policy. They never really were.