December 18, 2003

Addressing the Soviet Legacy

I read recently that at least 18 journalists have been murdered in the Ukraine since it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991. Volodymyr Karachevtsev is the latest victim. It probably didn't come as a surprise when the end came. He had been receiving death threats for some time. Seems he kept snooping around links between local officials and certain businessmen.

Some of the deaths have been linked directly to President Kuchma. He's not the sort of bloke who wants to be scrutinized very closely. Kuchma was made from the same mold as other leaders of post-Soviet republics.

The Ukraine has Kuchma, Uzbekistan has Karimov, Kazakhstan has Nazarbayev, Turkmenstan has Niyazov - strongmen who brook no opposition. Brutal dictators, yet we hear so little criticism from the West. With American forces built up in neighbouring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems like it would be a relatively easy task to ensure democracy in the whole region. Unless we are just picking and choosing which dictators to knock off, of course.

Posted by david at December 18, 2003 08:48 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Dun, Dunn, Dunnnn....spooky

Posted by: aaron at December 18, 2003 10:23 PM

Of course we are "picking and choosing" which dictators to take out. While one might argue that justice prohibits taking out any sovereign ruler (dictatorial, democratic, or otherwise), if we are going to engage in regime change, there's no requirement to do so in some theoretically "even-handed" fashion. If there is any justification for regime change, it is that it is necessary to defend our legitimate national security interests. We did not take out the Ba'ath regime simply because Hussein was a dictator; we did so because our government determined that the regime was (directly or indirectly) a threat to our national security.

A plausible case can be (and has been) made for that. I'm not sure that the same can be said for Nazarbayev, Karimov, and company. If you don't buy the Bush administration's case for the Iraq war, say so and say why - that can be a respectable position. But don't fault them because they fail to display a mindless consistency, that would make a mockery of the exercise of prudence in foreign affairs.

Posted by: Christopher Jones at December 22, 2003 02:45 PM

Christopher,

I'm not saying I don't buy the Bush case for the Iraq war -- I think there are valid reasons both for and against it. I agree that a plausible case can be made that there was a threat to national security. I also I think there very well may be no WMD - hence the change of emphasis by both the US and UK goverments to Saddam's human rights record and the need to take him out because of that.

Because of this change of tune, I am concerned that there is no public criticism of other despotic regimes. If we are going to use human rights abuse as a reason, then I think there should be equal criticism.

Posted by: David Holford at December 22, 2003 10:15 PM

David,

My own take on this is that we did have valid reasons for going to war, but that they were rather old-fashioned geostrategic reasons that don't "look good" in a public relations sense. For all the early post-9/11 rhetoric that "this is not a religious war" and "this is not a 'clash of civilizations'", in a very broad and long-term sense Islamic terrorism both before 9/11 and since is an attack by Islam on the West; and our strategic response must be (in an equally broad and long-term sense) a confrontation with the Islamic world. Whatever else the Iraq war is, it is the establishment of a forward position in the confrontation with the Islamic world.

For a number of very good reasons our government cannot afford to put the matter so baldly. Hence the need to make the case for war against Iraq on issues that, however valid they may be, are secondary. The result is that the case that they made for it was incoherent, even if it was the truth.

Posted by: Christopher Jones at December 22, 2003 10:59 PM

I will certainly agree with you that as long as the US and UK Governments find it politically necessary to put up this front of Islam as a peaceful religion and yet still want to get rid of dangerous Islamic regimes, they will have to spin the PR on these wars in a different direction.

Posted by: David Holford at December 23, 2003 01:28 AM