No kidding.
That is what I said. That is what I always have said. Hold ourselves to our own express principles.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
When interests demand that we bend those principles, as interests will often do, be upfront and say "Due to these vital interests we will deviate slightly from our stated path for some period of time."
No one cares when the minister goes down to the corner bar for a couple of drinks and a smoke. They care when he spends Saturday night doing that, while spending Sunday morning condemning the congregation to hell for doing the same thing.
Which brings us to the second crazy interpretation you made when I discussed US interests and US principles being in conflict. You say:
"There is no conflict between principles and interests, because there is nothing in our principles that requires us to demand that other nations live up to our principles. Our principles are our principles. We need to live by them. That doesn't mean we can or should impose them elsewhere."
I'm not even sure where you got that from, other than your reflexive urge to argue with anything I post. The US has express principles that we say we stand for. The US has express interests that we say we will exert ourselves to promote. Many of those interests are in the Middle East in general, and in places such as Bahrain in particular.
In the past we have promoted our interests by focusing on the stability that comes from sustaining specific governments in power. It made sense at the time. How they governed was their business. No matter how dissatisfied their populaces might be there was little consequence, other than the occasional moral judge ment, for such arrangements.
Now to the conflict of interest. How they govern is still their business. The US still has interests in the region. What has changed, creating the conflict, is that in today's globalized environment, with empowered populaces and non-state actors there are consequences for such stability achieved through such support.
So now, I submit, the terms of the contract have changed. If these governments want US support to sustain them in power they are going to have to deal with some invasive new terms. They had been fooling themselves that their situation has not changed. They had internal challenges before, they have internal challenges now. They know full well how to keep a populaces on it's knees, and do not need our help in that regard. But now the same tools of information and transportation that brought nationalist discontent in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to the shores of the US is now bringing open revolt in Tunisia to other other Arab lands as well. The Genie is out of the bottle. So, again, the terms of the contract have changed.
This does not mean the imposition of US principles or values on anyone. It does mean, however, that it is in the best interest currently for all the parties involved for these governments to finally make some concessions on HUMAN principles, as shaped by their own distinct culture, religion and situations. The people of Egypt are not fighting for US principles. They people of Libya are not fighting for US principles. The people of Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia are not fighting for US principles. They are fighting for human principles as shaped by their respective situations.
The only US principle in play, and the one we have the greatest conflict with, is our express commitment that these people, and people everywhere, have a god given right to fight for such things. If we help these governments suppress their people in this desire, then there will be consequences paid in increased acts of terrorism for our actions.
Which brings us to my recommendation that now is the time for hard, smart diplomacy. To renegotiate the contracts of our relationships with these governments based upon new and emerging conditions; and to do so in a manner that is as consistent with our stated principles as possible.
Bookmarks