LyrArc Article Gist
Bret Stephens on the foreign policy debate about supporting or not supporting dictators. On the big one today of Iraq after the large gains with Maliki in Iraq it could be said that its not an easy path either way with each path fraught with dangers, but in the long run if one perseveres and again in the spirit of democracy and with the people in the region themselves and their leaders having good sense and good judgement and putting the interests of the whole region before their personal interests, given this you are always going to do better by your people and the people in the region affected, by respecting democratic ideals and principles. Pakistan is not a good example because its leaders have put their personal interests before the interests of their people but even there things are changing. Zardari's dirtier and clumsier hands are mentioned by Stephens but even here this time the opposition led by Nawas Sharif decided that its more important to respect the electoral process and democratic ideals and let Zardari run Pakistan. Administrations like the Bhuttos and Zardari's have alway been corrupt so there are no high expectations but even here the people of Pakistan will find a way to make the progress they desperately need and find the leadership that can provide it. The military muffling and jailing dissent and not respecting the independent judiciary may not affect the person on the street in Des Moines or Delaware but for people in Pakistan who have suffered under military rule this may be a different story. And in the Middle East things were not that much better with dictators in power either in Palestine and its an area where the conditional part of leadership in the region having good sense and judgement should be considered as well as history. In Iran its not between the Ayatollah and the Shah, before the Shah an elected government in Iran was overthrown when its anti western oil company stance was seen in the light of the cold war. It was the overthrow of that government that brought the Shah in. Had it continued the internal politics of Iran would have been resolved by the people there. In other words western oil interests and lobbies and the cold war distorted the process there. Without the two Iran's politics would not be of much interest to people in the USA and governments there also would have no reason to be especially friendly or especially hostile to the USA. So once one removes the distorting factors and takes out the countries which cannot be used as good example like Palestine and Iran, on the big one Iraq where the people and the leadership in the region did not fail even in very difficult situation and the US persevered, respecting democratic ideals and principles was the best course with the best results. The improved Libyan relations should not be chalked off as a point in favor of dealing with dictators. With better or worse relations with Libya it made little noticeable difference or probably no difference to the people in Des Moines or Delaware. For Iraq it makes a big difference to get it right by both peoples. Libya which had closed itself off from western technology and ideas now opens itself up because this way it can improve life for people in the region, this may be the only thing that has changed. And Stephens puts it another way its more sustainable. But why is it more sustainable to respect democratic ideals and principles given that the leadership of people in the region affected and the people themselves have good sense and judgement? Because in doing so one is respecting oneself one is more true to one's own people's idea of a good and just society and one is respecting other people.