Episteme
19-01-2005, 15:34
Iran, Belarus, North Korea, Burma (Myanmar), Zimbabwe and Cuba are all singled out as 'outposts of tyranny' in which the USA must act to help bring freedom by Condoleezza Rice in a speech today.
This is a long, long way from the old strategies of the Cold War. If America does decide to get involved in any of those countries- by whatever means (I assume many of Rice's aides will be pressing for military action, especially in Iran and North Korea)- it will have to be prepared for grave consequences. If America thinks it can justify the deaths of thousands of its own soldiers and many thousands more civilians in a conflict with any of the nations named, if the current administration believes wholehertedly that it can look the mother of every single dead soldier in the eye and tell them their son or daughter's death was justified, then chances are some sort of military 'intervention' will occur within Bush's second term.
But what are these countries really like, and what are the wider implications of interfering in their affairs, however unjust one may believe them to be? I must admit I don't know much specifically about Belarus, though I know its human rights record is awful and it does little to help the many thousands of victims still suffering from the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. Cuba will, many predict, be prepared to change and embrace the rest of the world (though probably on its own terms) soon after Castro dies which can't be far away, and it's fair to say that Cuba is no threat to anyone else and its people should be allowed to change and not forced to. Iran's fundamentalist regime is still very much in charge of its affairs, but just like in a lot of Islamic nations, the "death to America" chants are encouraged by the powers that be only because of an acute awareness that otherwise, the discontents of Iranians would be directed at their own regime. Scratch the surface of Iranian society and you find many people have no hostility to the west and really do want change- of course all that would end if the USAF started bombing them out of their homes. Burma is a bizarre and secret society where slavery is commonplace, the countryside is effectively run by drug warlords and Chinese landowning interests and the government fills its pockets with drug money whilst demanding the west give it funds to tackle trafficking. Unfortunately all too many of our western corporations are willing to invest in Burma and give its government more money with which a few corrupt officials build opulent palace-style homes whilst the rest suffer- but as the case of Au Sang Suu Kyi and others shows, popular discontent is very strong in Burma and has the potential to overthrow the regime if only the government there weren't able to line its pockets with money from the west. Zimbabwe is a strange case, and Mugabe can't have long left- I think he's about 85 though he treats himself to a luxurious lifestyle- thus after he goes, or even before if Tsvangirai and his supporters aren't terrorised by Mugabe's goons, the people of Zimbabwe will surely realise that overrunning white-owned farms, even if many of Zimbabwe's white farmers were virulently racist and hostile to the black population (funnily enough many of those have fled to Britain or Australia whilst more tolerant whites have remained), benefits nobody- the farms were organized and efficient and produced profits, even if those profits were not always distributed fairly. The farms now, in most cases, make no profits, some have been reduced to wasteland and the people who live on the land have to rely on outside aid. Tsvangirai or another leader with some common sense could easily take Zimbabwe back to its former GDP levels peacefully, and only South Africa's acquiescence in the whole affair prevents this possibility. North Korea, however, is a case apart, and whilst I think all the above cases could be effectively solved with good diplomacy (which is what Rice is employed to do), it's hard to see how any short-term diplomatic strategy can solve the North Korean problem, which has much more potential to drag in other countries than any of the others. An Iraq-style invasion could potentially cost millions of lives given that North Korea has both nuclear capacity and willingness to use it, but as time goes on, the nutcase in charge will probably get more nukes, as well as some more John Travolta DVDs.
I'd advise Condi- even though she is much more learned in this profession than I- to use 'kid gloves' in dealing with all the countries named, and one thing's for sure- unilateralism is not an option. To just invade any of those countries could create a war worse than anything ever seen, one which no cause, not even the virtues of liberal democracy (sorry Mr Fukuyama) could ever hope to justify. Maybe the most 'diplomatic' thing to do, especially with Belarus, Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe, would be to just wait and see, even if it would mean Condi and George would never be cast in stone as 'liberators' outside the new, democratic government offices of Minsk, Rangoon, Havana and Harare in the future the neo-cons seem to want to pull us all toward. But it's not my job to decide, it's Condi's. Good luck in the new job Ms Rice, we're all counting on you not to get us all blown up!!!
This is a long, long way from the old strategies of the Cold War. If America does decide to get involved in any of those countries- by whatever means (I assume many of Rice's aides will be pressing for military action, especially in Iran and North Korea)- it will have to be prepared for grave consequences. If America thinks it can justify the deaths of thousands of its own soldiers and many thousands more civilians in a conflict with any of the nations named, if the current administration believes wholehertedly that it can look the mother of every single dead soldier in the eye and tell them their son or daughter's death was justified, then chances are some sort of military 'intervention' will occur within Bush's second term.
But what are these countries really like, and what are the wider implications of interfering in their affairs, however unjust one may believe them to be? I must admit I don't know much specifically about Belarus, though I know its human rights record is awful and it does little to help the many thousands of victims still suffering from the effects of the Chernobyl disaster. Cuba will, many predict, be prepared to change and embrace the rest of the world (though probably on its own terms) soon after Castro dies which can't be far away, and it's fair to say that Cuba is no threat to anyone else and its people should be allowed to change and not forced to. Iran's fundamentalist regime is still very much in charge of its affairs, but just like in a lot of Islamic nations, the "death to America" chants are encouraged by the powers that be only because of an acute awareness that otherwise, the discontents of Iranians would be directed at their own regime. Scratch the surface of Iranian society and you find many people have no hostility to the west and really do want change- of course all that would end if the USAF started bombing them out of their homes. Burma is a bizarre and secret society where slavery is commonplace, the countryside is effectively run by drug warlords and Chinese landowning interests and the government fills its pockets with drug money whilst demanding the west give it funds to tackle trafficking. Unfortunately all too many of our western corporations are willing to invest in Burma and give its government more money with which a few corrupt officials build opulent palace-style homes whilst the rest suffer- but as the case of Au Sang Suu Kyi and others shows, popular discontent is very strong in Burma and has the potential to overthrow the regime if only the government there weren't able to line its pockets with money from the west. Zimbabwe is a strange case, and Mugabe can't have long left- I think he's about 85 though he treats himself to a luxurious lifestyle- thus after he goes, or even before if Tsvangirai and his supporters aren't terrorised by Mugabe's goons, the people of Zimbabwe will surely realise that overrunning white-owned farms, even if many of Zimbabwe's white farmers were virulently racist and hostile to the black population (funnily enough many of those have fled to Britain or Australia whilst more tolerant whites have remained), benefits nobody- the farms were organized and efficient and produced profits, even if those profits were not always distributed fairly. The farms now, in most cases, make no profits, some have been reduced to wasteland and the people who live on the land have to rely on outside aid. Tsvangirai or another leader with some common sense could easily take Zimbabwe back to its former GDP levels peacefully, and only South Africa's acquiescence in the whole affair prevents this possibility. North Korea, however, is a case apart, and whilst I think all the above cases could be effectively solved with good diplomacy (which is what Rice is employed to do), it's hard to see how any short-term diplomatic strategy can solve the North Korean problem, which has much more potential to drag in other countries than any of the others. An Iraq-style invasion could potentially cost millions of lives given that North Korea has both nuclear capacity and willingness to use it, but as time goes on, the nutcase in charge will probably get more nukes, as well as some more John Travolta DVDs.
I'd advise Condi- even though she is much more learned in this profession than I- to use 'kid gloves' in dealing with all the countries named, and one thing's for sure- unilateralism is not an option. To just invade any of those countries could create a war worse than anything ever seen, one which no cause, not even the virtues of liberal democracy (sorry Mr Fukuyama) could ever hope to justify. Maybe the most 'diplomatic' thing to do, especially with Belarus, Burma, Cuba and Zimbabwe, would be to just wait and see, even if it would mean Condi and George would never be cast in stone as 'liberators' outside the new, democratic government offices of Minsk, Rangoon, Havana and Harare in the future the neo-cons seem to want to pull us all toward. But it's not my job to decide, it's Condi's. Good luck in the new job Ms Rice, we're all counting on you not to get us all blown up!!!