Gautam wrote:
> But I don't see how your statement conflicts with mine at
> all. It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism,
> for one thing. Where did you get that idea?
>
Because it seems that those dictators that are docile
to the multinational corporations never join the
lists of Evil Empires or Axis of Evil. For example, why
the rules of Saudi Arabia, or even Kuwait, aren�t
criticized?
Me:
First, whatever gives you the idea that the rulers of Saudi Arabia aren't
criticized? The rulers of Kuwait are actually going through a fairly rapid
liberalization process, so I'm fairly happy with them and willing to
support them in that effort. But the rulers of Saudi Arabia are criticized
by us all the time. It's just that the Saudi government has not displayed
a propensity to kill Americans, which is what I chiefly object to.
In all honesty, Alberto, I think you're imposing the perceptual filter of
your, well, paranoia about multinationals upon our decision-making when
there is no grounds for it. Dictators that are hospitable to American
companies are usually hospitable to Americans, in general. Which is what
we're deciding on. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both vastly better than,
say, Iraq internally, without question. But more importantly from our
perspective, they're much better _externally_ too. They don't sponsor
international terrorism, which both Iraq and Iran do extensively. That's
our objection to them. It doesn't have anything to do with companies.
> It's about threat. I'm not proposing wandering around
> the world lopping off non-democratic states at random.
> Saddam Hussein is a threat to us. He is a totalitarian
> dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction
> _against his own people_,
>
See why I brought up Turkey? The Turkish g*vernment _has_
used weapons of mass destruction against their own people,
the Kurds. They have repeatedly menaced their neighbours,
and in the case of Chipre [Cyprus? I don�t know the English
spelling - a small Mediterranean island that is half greek
and half turkish].
Me:
I'm sorry - the Turkish government has used nuclear, chemical, or
biological weapons against the Kurds? I'd like a cite on that, please.
Turkey has some problems with its neighbors. No country is perfect. But
Turkey is a sort-of democracy that _is an American ally_. We treat our
friends differently than we treat our enemies. That's not hypocritical or
immoral or anything like that. It's what you do. You help your friends
and you fight your enemies. You try and make your friends better - and the
US puts continual and extensive pressure on Turkey to democratize and work
on its relations with the Kurds - but yes, I think it's perfectly
reasonable to treat Turkey differently than we treat Iran.
> is currently attempting to acquire nuclear
> weapons,
>
As are many other countries; even Brazil had a nuclear
program to build A-Bombs, some years ago.
Me:
Yes, but Brazil has not recently attempted to conquer neighboring
countries, assassinate an ex-President of the United States, used chemical
weapons on its own civilians, has a freely elected government...
Alberto:
I _also_ think Saddam might be the most evil dictator
of the world. However, I don�t think this is the reason
the USA is trying to topple him. It will sound like
a good excuse, it will make the USA look like a supporter
of Good against Evil, it might even improve the situation
for the people of Iraq. But unless there is a serious
effort to make *all* dictators feel that they are in
danger, it will become just a replacement of a rebel
dictator by a docile dictator.
Me:
But I'm okay with that. It's not optimal, but replacing an _enemy_ of the
United States with a _friend_ of the United States seems like a good
outcome to me. Particularly since governments that are friendly to the
United States are usually much better for their internal populations than
governments that are enemies of the US. It's not like there are
Jeffersonian Democrats waiting in the desert to spring up. Replacing a
sociopathic mass murderer with the equivalent of Lee Kuan Yew sounds pretty
god to me, from both a moral and a practical standpoint. Good against evil
doesn't get any clearer than that. Whoever ends up ruling Afghanistan will
be better than the Taliban in every aspect. Who ever ends up running Iraq
will be better than Hussein in every aspect. I'd like every country in the
world to become a democracy - but that's not my first priority. My first
priority is to make sure that every country in the world understands that
you don't _ever_ attack the United States, and you don't ever help anyone
who attacks the United States. For that goal, removing Saddam Hussein is a
great first step.
What I don't understand is why you feel that our tactics should be
invariant with respect to circumstance. Egypt is different from Iraq. Why
shouldn't we act differently with regards to Iraq than we do to Egypt?
That's not immoral or hypocritical - it just make sense.
Alberto:
My point is that Mubarak, Museveni, and whoever rules China
are "docile" dictators, that help multinational companies
profit from their countries.
Alberto Monteiro
Me:
And by doing so, they help their own countries profit as well. The
experience of South Korea, China, and India, has something to add to these
cases. If you open your country to the world - you _will_ be exploited.
But, as South Korea, China, and India have learned - you are _better off_
being exploited than not being exploited. South Korea is virtually an
industrialized country, for goodness sake. 50 years ago it was rubble.
This is progress. Every non-industrialized country in the world should
only hope for such exploitation.
Gautam
