Um, a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605649582063489.html"no one cares what Jose Maria Aznar thinks/a, but this is an especially useless effort. The comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are delivered with the stupidity that's customary for the genre; it's hard, for example, to know where to begin his claim that Western support for Soviet dissidents (a) made Soviet leaders fearful of treating them badly, and (b) eventually brought town the government itself. Whatever force "the Free World" was able to exert upon Soviet human rights was a direct result of the fact that the US and the Soviet Union had, from 1963 through the mid-1970s, established a reasonably successful record of negotiating on a variety of issues of mutual interest (e.g, nuclear testing and arms limitations, grain shipments, etc.) So far as dissidents were concerned, their treatment during this period was mild by the obviously unpleasant by historical standards -- not because the government feared Johnson, Nixon or Ford (who were, it's worth pointing out, not hollering conspicuously about Soviet dissidents) but because Soviet leadership saw little to be gained domestically from "ruthlessly [doing] away with them," as Aznar insists they would have. After Khrushchev's disclosures, a full revival of Stalinist brutality was probably an impossibility; whatever ill needs to be spoken of the post-Stalin era, it's insane to claim their behavior was held in check simply out of fear of external punishment. The state viewed dissidents as enemies of the regime and suppressed them as best they could, but by the late 1970s and 1980s -- when Aznar presumably believes US support for dissidents was most consequential -- the Soviet leadership hardly required the aid of dissenters (or critiques by American leaders) to bring discredit to its own project. br /br /That said, it's hard to imagine what sort of guidance Aznar thinks his flawed history might provide for the Obama administration. This is of course a href="http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/06/foreign-policy-isnt-about-your-feelings.html"a problem/a for anyone who's been insisting that Obama Must Do Somethingspan style="font-size:78%;"supTM/sup/span, but Aznar captures the vagueness of the argument with impressive brevity:blockquoteThis is no time for hesitation on the part of the West. If, as part of an attempt to reach an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, the leaders of democratic nations turn their backs on the dissidents they will be making a terrible mistake.br /br /President Obama has said he refuses to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs, but this is a poor excuse for passivity. If the international community is not able to stop, or at least set limits on, the repressive violence of the Islamic regime, the protesters will end up as so many have in the past -- in exile, in prison, or in the cemetery. And with them, all hope for change will be gone./blockquoteSee, I'd been under the mistaken impression that the US would be hard-pressed to find a constructive role to play with respect to the Iranian crisis. But I forgot that by simply not hesitating* and by facing the protesters squarely in solidarity**, we could actually iset limits/i*** on the behavior of the Iranian state! br /br /br /br /* Whatever the hell that means.br /** Ibid.br /*** Ibid.div class="blogger-post-footer"img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7163938-3935237539861655989?l=lefarkins.blogspot.com'//div
technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley
No comments:
Post a Comment