But the real question for a leader is what happens when all things are not equal, which is the case most of the time. Everyone thinks that human rights are neat and swell in the abstract, after all. We can reasonably assume that, all things being equal, the president would like to see fewer atrocities in the world. In Obama's world, there are no hard tradeoffs on human rights But if Obama has such a strategy, he was careful not to mention it in the interview. That's a strategic consideration that deserves a strategic response. So under Obama's own reasoning, bad human rights protections make countries unstable, which is not just a moral problem but also a threat to US interests. If that same dynamic could play out in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, then US policy needs to take that risk into account and develop a strategy for limiting the threat it poses to US interests. It may be happening in slow motion in Egypt, where the military government is struggling to control an Islamist insurgency in the Sinai peninsula. That's what happened in Libya, in Iraq (with an assist from the US on the "collapse" part), and in Syria. And in many cases, that disorder is preceded by exactly the dynamic Obama described: an autocratic government represses political dissent and violates human rights as it clings to power, but then eventually collapses, leaving behind a political vacuum that breeds violent chaos.
OBAMA USES CHAOS CONTROL HOW TO
In the interview, he said that the biggest challenges the US is facing right now are how to deal with the violent disorder of failed states, civil war, terrorism, and sectarian violence. That's especially notable because stability is clearly a major concern for him. It's going to continue to crumble that model." "I am a firm believer that particularly in this modern internet age, the capacity of the old-style authoritarian government to sustain itself and to thrive just is going to continue to weaken. He later elaborated that the nature of the world is making autocracies increasingly unsustainable. "Any realist worth their salt," Obama said during the interview, "would say that any society that consistently ignores human rights and the dignity of its citizens at some point is going to be unstable and not a great partner." Obama says human rights are a strategic issue.
OBAMA USES CHAOS CONTROL FREE
That's a curious - and concerning - view for the leader of the free world to take. Surely, then, there should be a more strategic way of integrating them into US policy than just trying to "do both things." But Obama implied that he had only a minor, reactive role to play and that the arc of history would take care of the problem in the long run. That approach is especially curious because Obama himself said that other countries' poor human-rights records are a source of instability and chaos in the world and a threat to US partnerships with its allies. Are human-rights protections part of a strategic plan for improving the world and protecting American interests? Or are they just a sort of free gift with purchase of other policies, something nice to have but not an objective in and of themselves? But that doesn't answer the real question of when it is worthwhile for the US to pursue improvements in human rights at the expense of other objectives. When asked whether he was concerned about the human-rights records of US allies like Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, Obama hedged, saying that the US has to press for human-rights improvements while also pursuing other national-security objectives - to "do both things." Nowhere was that clearer than in Obama's response to a question about human rights. But it's just a tactic - and US foreign policy requires a strategy. In his interview with Vox, President Obama laid out a view of the United States' role in foreign affairs that is so minimalist that Matt Yglesias, who interviewed him, has referred to it as an " undoctrine." There’s a lot to like about that idea: inaction looks pretty great when compared to actions like, say, the Iraq war.
0 kommentar(er)
