International Herald Tribune Editorial - From Cheney, with nerve
From Cheney, with nerve
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
SUNDAY, MAY 7, 2006
It's hard to disagree with Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of Russia on Thursday. President Vladimir Putin has indeed reversed the democratizing course set, however clumsily and incompletely, by Boris Yeltsin, and he is using Russia's vast reserves of oil and gas as tools of intimidation and blackmail.
These are things the Russians have to hear, however irritating and painful they may find them. Flush with money from soaring energy prices and gleeful in the new-found power to play the East off against the West, the Russians have reverted to some of the worst habits of the Soviet past, and admiring peeks into Putin's soul seem ever more inappropriate. The Bush administration is right to re- examine its stance on Russia, and European leaders should do likewise before flocking to St. Petersburg in July for a Group of 8 meeting that is being hosted by Putin. It seemed right for Cheney to make his comments before leaders of many of Moscow's former dominions.
Still, however much we agree with the content of Cheney's remarks, the unavoidable reaction is to question their motives, provenance and usefulness. There was a time when a strong statement from Washington in support of human rights and democratic behavior carried real authority. But of late the human-rights record of this U.S. administration has seriously eroded its moral authority, and Cheney is closely associated with some of its most offensive policies.
Straight from Vilnius, Cheney travels to oil-rich Kazakhstan to make nice to President Nursultan Nazarbayev, a leader with an awful human-rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent. A week ago, President George W. Bush received a similar autocrat, President Ilham Aliyev of oil-rich Azerbaijan, in the White House. Given the global scramble for energy, there is an obvious self-interest for Washington on courting these secular leaders of Muslim nations. But spearing Russia while flirting with its even more undemocratic neighbors does confuse the message, to put it mildly, especially when done by a vice president closely identified with oil interests.
The Bush administration has been striving for weeks to line up Putin's support for a UN resolution aimed at halting Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Without Putin's personal backing, that effort cannot succeed, and officials from Bush on down have been trying to win him over. In that light, the timing of Cheney's remarks, which were vetted by the White House, seems rather odd.
It can be argued that balancing America's sense of mission in spreading democracy and its national interests has always created contradictions in U.S. foreign policy and global behavior. But so long as there was a moral compass, there was at least a tacit distinction between principled actions and necessary evils. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," his words bit deep, because America was then a powerful symbol of freedom. It would be good if Cheney's truths also had an impact, but how does it go about the mote in your own eye?
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
SUNDAY, MAY 7, 2006
It's hard to disagree with Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of Russia on Thursday. President Vladimir Putin has indeed reversed the democratizing course set, however clumsily and incompletely, by Boris Yeltsin, and he is using Russia's vast reserves of oil and gas as tools of intimidation and blackmail.
These are things the Russians have to hear, however irritating and painful they may find them. Flush with money from soaring energy prices and gleeful in the new-found power to play the East off against the West, the Russians have reverted to some of the worst habits of the Soviet past, and admiring peeks into Putin's soul seem ever more inappropriate. The Bush administration is right to re- examine its stance on Russia, and European leaders should do likewise before flocking to St. Petersburg in July for a Group of 8 meeting that is being hosted by Putin. It seemed right for Cheney to make his comments before leaders of many of Moscow's former dominions.
Still, however much we agree with the content of Cheney's remarks, the unavoidable reaction is to question their motives, provenance and usefulness. There was a time when a strong statement from Washington in support of human rights and democratic behavior carried real authority. But of late the human-rights record of this U.S. administration has seriously eroded its moral authority, and Cheney is closely associated with some of its most offensive policies.
Straight from Vilnius, Cheney travels to oil-rich Kazakhstan to make nice to President Nursultan Nazarbayev, a leader with an awful human-rights record whose recent re-election was fraudulent. A week ago, President George W. Bush received a similar autocrat, President Ilham Aliyev of oil-rich Azerbaijan, in the White House. Given the global scramble for energy, there is an obvious self-interest for Washington on courting these secular leaders of Muslim nations. But spearing Russia while flirting with its even more undemocratic neighbors does confuse the message, to put it mildly, especially when done by a vice president closely identified with oil interests.
The Bush administration has been striving for weeks to line up Putin's support for a UN resolution aimed at halting Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Without Putin's personal backing, that effort cannot succeed, and officials from Bush on down have been trying to win him over. In that light, the timing of Cheney's remarks, which were vetted by the White House, seems rather odd.
It can be argued that balancing America's sense of mission in spreading democracy and its national interests has always created contradictions in U.S. foreign policy and global behavior. But so long as there was a moral compass, there was at least a tacit distinction between principled actions and necessary evils. When President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire," his words bit deep, because America was then a powerful symbol of freedom. It would be good if Cheney's truths also had an impact, but how does it go about the mote in your own eye?
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home