by Charles
And who can blame him? Pakistan has a problem with women’s rights, among other things, embodied by the travails of Mukhtaran Bibi. Kristof:
When Pakistan’s prime minister visits next month, President Bush will presumably use the occasion to repeat his praise for President Pervez Musharraf as a bold leader "dedicated in the protection of his own people." Then they will sit down and discuss Mr. Bush’s plan to sell Pakistan F-16 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
But here’s a suggestion: How about the White House dropping word that before the prime minister arrives, he first return the passport of Mukhtaran Bibi, the rape victim turned human-rights campaigner, so that she can visit the United States?
If Condoleeza Rice can go to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and press for reform, so can Bush with Musharraf when the Pakistani general visits the White House. David Ignatius:
But an overlooked aspect of Rice’s speech was that it established guideposts by which to measure the policy of the United States. She enunciated a pro-democracy position so forcefully that if the Bush administration deviates from it, or undermines its credibility through belligerent, anti-democratic actions, it will be open to the charge of hypocrisy.
That "glass house" aspect of Rice’s proclamation can help keep the Bush administration honest about some of its toughest foreign policy decisions. It’s the secular equivalent of "What Would Jesus Do?" What would a democratic nation that cares about the rule of law do about the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? What energy policies are appropriate for a nation that advocates change in Saudi Arabia?
Rice was not advancing an expedient wartime ethic, of the sort we have heard too often from the Bush administration, but a universal moral one. America’s mission, by her account, isn’t a war against terrorism but a struggle for democracy. That may sound like a mere change in semantics, but it moves the United States from a situation in which every Muslim is a potential enemy to one in which every Muslim is a potential ally. Again, amen.
As I wrote here, the table has been set. The Bush administration policy is to "persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right." This is a case where the policy should be put to the test. If we sell Musharraf F-16s, fine, but there better be some strings attached.
This is a case where the policy should be put to the test. If we sell Musharraf F-16s, fine, but there better be some strings attached.
Don’t set the bar too high.
Sharon Offers Abbas Deal on West Bank
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that Israel would hand ove
“If Condoleeza Rice can go to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and press for reform”
Besides talking what have we actually done to pressure these countries towards Democracy? Didn’t we just give a huge pile of cash to Egypt to support their dictatorship?
Yes. Where are the pretty words? I think we can all agree that there’s nothing much to complain about as regards this Administration, but for the lack of pretty words.
Charles, I will bet you a $100 gift to the charity of each others’ choice that Bush asks for exactly nothing significant, and gets exactly nothing significant, from Musharraf.
Besides talking what have we actually done to pressure these countries towards Democracy?
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls.” But hey, that was just talking, no?
Didn’t we just give a huge pile of cash to Egypt to support their dictatorship?
We give Egypt over $1 billion annually as part of our obligation for the 1979 Camp David accords, not to “support their dictatorship”.
Isn’t Pakistan aiding and protecting the author of 9-11?
I thought Bush wasn’t gonna allow states to help terrorists who killed thousands of Americans?
And I’m talkin’ about rael Americans and not theoretical Americans.
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls.” But hey, that was just talking, no?
And as soon as Ronnie uttered the magical incantation, the Wall fell. And Harry and Hermione jumped up and down at it’s success.
All other factors, of course, being irrelevant.
“We give Egypt over $1 billion annually as part of our obligation for the 1979 Camp David accords, not to ‘support their dictatorship’.”
It’s a twofer, not an either/or, actually. Wishing it weren’t so doesn’t make it not so. Cognitive dissonance does not, in fact, change reality outside of Philip K. Dick novels.
Cognitive dissonance does not, in fact, change reality outside of Philip K. Dick novels.
tee-hee
And by the way REVENGE OF THE SITH ROCKED!!!
Totally on-board with this post, Charles. I don’t think it goes far enough, and I’m not sanguine about the possibility of the Bush administration taking your advice, but still.
If Condoleeza Rice can go to Egypt and Saudi Arabia and press for reform, so can Bush with Musharraf when the Pakistani general visits the White House.
I suspect that it will be a lot like Rice’s trip to Egypt, during which Mubarak promised a multicandidate presidential election. Musharraf will likely promise something similar. Then, just as when Mubarak’s promise turned out to be a complete sham, the administration will …
Look! Dick Durbin!
Isn’t Pakistan’s protecting a known mass-killer, like, a major human rights violation?
I mean Bin Laden is kicking-it old school, up in Pakistan, like total chillin’…Hussein was captured and jailed, and he had nothin’ to do with it, what is up with that!?
I think this could be (and if the press does its job right) will be the first real test of Bush’s willingness to walk the walk. Every day between now and the press conference with Musharraf next month, there should be a story on Mukhtaran Bibi.
I don’t think the Bush administration is the least bit sincere about promoting democracy but I think Charles, and many other rank and file Republicans are.
What lily said.
Which raises the question of the best way to deal with this type of issue — how much rhetoric and arm-twisting to use to promote human rights values. Pakistan was on the US sh*t list until 9/11, when its strategic importance overshadowed other concerns. And it makes sense at times to make that ugly bargain (at least, it made sense with Pakistan had we intended to pursue bin Laden with more earnestness).
By the way, there are similar woman rights problems in Afghanistan, that are also not being addressed.
lily,
but I think Charles, and many other rank and file Republicans are.
I’ve always believed that,
but the road to hell is paved with good hearts…
there was a term for dangerous un-thinking liberals, “bleeding-heart liberals”…I think there are “bleeding-heart conservatives”
Or I could shut-the-[REDACTED – Ed.]-up and do what dmbeaster suggested:
Which raises the question of the best way to deal with this type of issue — how much rhetoric and arm-twisting to use to promote human rights values. Pakistan was on the US sh*t list until 9/11, when its strategic importance overshadowed other concerns. And it makes sense at times to make that ugly bargain (at least, it made sense with Pakistan had we intended to pursue bin Laden with more earnestness).
(i would still like to know what is up with bin Laden!)
[Neodude, I think you’ve been warned for profanity before. Please email the kitten if you care to appeal. – Ed.]
Charles, I agree with your post, but Bush’s history makes me extremely doubtful that he will follow your advice. If he does, my opinion of him will move up a notch and I’ll join you in telling him “good job.”
I’m not holding my breath, though.
I don’t think the Bush administration is the least bit sincere about promoting democracy but I think Charles, and many other rank and file Republicans are.
Oh please. We’re all for kittens and towheaded children smiling in the sun. Politics is about setting priorities, and trading possible outcomes on the basis of those priorities. I don’t doubt CB is for democracy promotion. Who in the US isn’t? I don’t doubt he’s against torture. Who wouldn’t be? What I doubt is how much that matters, as neither he nor his cohort are willing to trade whatever they believe Bush is giving them for the protection of those values.
Hell, I’m sure there really were Mussolini supporters who supported Il Duce purely because they liked trains that ran on time. (I like trains that run on time.) I don’t think much of that claim as a defense for their support of Mussolini.
“Every day between now and the press conference with Musharraf next month, there should be a story on Mukhtaran Bibi.”
I think that would be of limited use, because it sets the bar so ludicrously low that all Musharraf has to do to fulfill it is put one person under surveillance-at-a-distance, and, presto-magico, he’s off the hook!
Justice for Bibi is important, because justice for a single person is always important, and because justice for one is symbolic justice for many. But let’s not confuse symbolism for actual meaningful broad change, which is what actually turns out to be rather more important.
“”Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls.” But hey, that was just talking, no?”
Yeah, that’s all Reagen did was make a few speaches.
“We give Egypt over $1 billion annually as part of our obligation for the 1979 Camp David accords, not to “support their dictatorship”.”
Sure we did. If it was France you would be up in arms about the horribleness of it all, but since it’s Bush it’s all OK in your eyes.
“I don’t doubt he’s against torture. Who wouldn’t be?”
That turns out to be a huge number of people, who have made their varied opinions quite clear, ranging from allowing that some torture is necessary to get good results, to those who feel some will merely accidentally happen in the course of doing good work, and making a fuss about that is harmful, to those who think the correct approach are formal guidelines and formal procedures and formal authorizations. This is not actually a secret, but has been written about at great length in pretty much all the leading magazines of the day for the past three and a half years, research indicates. Since you asked.
(i would still like to know what is up with bin Laden!)
As usual, fafblog has the answer:
UPDATE FROM THE HUNT FOR BIN LADEN
“Marco!” says me. We sit an wait with the radar an the sonar an the complicated listenin devices but there is no response.
“Marco!” says me again.
“He’s cheating,” says Giblets.
“Nah, I think maybe we oughtta try those mountains over there,” says me. “Wait, did you hear that?” There’s a sound like lotsa feet runnin real quick.
“Fish outta water!” says me. Everybody gets real quiet. A coupla sheep go by chewin grass.
“He’s totally cheating,” says Giblets.
Gary:
Part of what you’re addressing is the changing meaning of “torture”. I’m pretty sure that a lot of those people are not OK with torture, but they are OK with fraternity hazing (per Limbaugh), or free lap-dances (per–well, lots). And many are against torture, except in extreme cases, like when dealing with grapefruit-flavored thermonuclear devices (per Posner). But the number of people for torture in the absence of some other priority they are balancing – pretty small, I’d bet.
Has the meaning of “torture” actually been changing? And if it is changing, might that have anything to do with the strenuous efforts by some on the right to euphemize actual torture into fun sounding things like fraternity pranks and club med vacations? I don’t think we can assume people are not OK with torture when their first response to allegations of abuse is the passionate, even self-righteous, defense of indifference. The number of people in favor of torture might be small, but the number of people in favor of not worrying about torture seems a little too large.
Charles, I will bet you a $100 gift to the charity of each others’ choice that Bush asks for exactly nothing significant, and gets exactly nothing significant, from Musharraf.
Stealing candy…
There is no evidence that the Bush adminstration cares about moral choices of any sort. This is the closest America has come to a kleptocracy. Injuring a few brown folks just in case a taxi driver has some ticking bomb info – OK with the Bush boys and the Redstate crowd. Charles will forget all about this accountability thing in the next couple weeks as well.
Don N
The Bush administration policy is to “persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right.”
And what, exactly, gives America the right to do that?
To put it another way, do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds outside the US?
DOn N: insult Bush all you want. But don’t insult Charles, who posts here, and thus falls under the civility provisions of the posting rules.
(What we would all do if our elected officials, of whichever perty, suddenly started hanging out here, I have no idea. Probably the posting rules would explode.)
“And what, exactly, gives America the right to do that?”
I’d say, myself, that anyone anywhere, including any government, should have the right to express their opinion, right or wrong. What is needed to grand a “right” to expression? (Mind, “right” does not mean “moral high ground” or “correctness” or any number of other possible things.)
Hilzoy: “(What we would all do if our elected officials, of whichever perty, suddenly started hanging out here, I have no idea. Probably the posting rules would explode.)”
That sort of thing has always bothered me considerably about the posting rules here, actually. I’ve never been clear on the rationale. My own life experience has been that I’ll run into “public figures,” including quite famous ones, all the time, speaking rather loosely, and I’ve never understood what my justification would be for speaking one thing of them behind their back when I would be unwilling, for whatever reason (short of threat of jail or force majeure , that is), to utter the same opinion to their face.
Who knows when you might at least run into people with fairly famous relatives of public figure status, say?
🙂
I would imagine that they would have had to figure out how to deal with people making the odd comment here and there in as tactful a way as possible, and thus would be up to the challenge of having those near and dear to them criticized to their faces. Offhand, I would have thought it would only be really ghastly when someone made such a criticism without knowing of the relationship, and then it would be ghastly for the person doing the criticizing. But what do I know? I suppose that when Jenna drops by to comment, I’ll find out.
OT, but it’s important to remember that the Wall was knocked down by ordinary folks, who started the process at direct risk to life and limb. And they didn’t care two hoots about what RR had said years earlier.
Further OT: I’ve heard that the real breakdown was a stupid miscommunication. The head DDR guys went into a meeting on 9.11.89 and said they didn’t want to be disturbed. Frantic calls to the leaders to find out whether to shoot at the demonstrators who were messing with the Wall went unanswered, because the minions refused to let people into the meeting.
Way OT: Why haven’t we heard more in the US press about how an East German is going to be elected chancellor of Germany in September? This ought to be a much bigger deal than it seems to be . . .
“I would imagine that they would have had to figure out how to deal with people making the odd comment here and there in as tactful a way as possible, and thus would be up to the challenge of having those near and dear to them criticized to their faces.”
Yes, of course, but I remain unclear why the emotional or intellectual preparedness of someone faced with offensive characterizations should be the primary factor regarding the offensiveness of being faced with unjust characterizations. I’m perfectly prepared to believe that at least some individuals who post to this blog are also up to the challenge of being faced with such language, but I’m unaware of an out in the posting rules that says it’s okay to use such languages based upon how the recipient is up to it.
I perfectly well understand the justification for rules in a particular place being about language that are centered upon the language used by the person uttering it; I’m far less clear on what the justification for rules on language are based upon who or what language refers to. I can kind of guess at what some might be, but I’m really unclear which might be applicable here.
Not mind you, that I have a particular interest in a crusade about this issue; I’m simply responding since the topic came up, and, as I’ve said, I’m very unclear about the rationale.
One of my guidelines in considering the issue, to be sure, remains why I or anyone should be okay with anyone talking nasty about someone behind their back but unwilling to stand up and defend saying it to their face. This notion, however confused I may be, has simply always bothered me greatly. In principle, that is, albeit not so much in practice. I have no problem, to be sure, believing that I simply haven’t considered it enough.
Gary
Isn’t this just the ‘right honorable gentleman’ sort of politeness that provides just enough lubrication to prevent things from grinding to a halt?
There is also the problem of having to defend people who are neither present nor even aware of the conversation. While it is _possible_ that someone who deplores either Bush or Clinton is going to end up face to face, the odds of that are exceedingly small. Someone else in the blogosphere, well, maybe, but I wouldn’t wish on anyone the job of having to defend people without really being familiar with all they have written and the stances they have taken. But when it is for someone who is here and participating, it is easily possible to undercut their contributions as well as goad them into getting angry and lashing out, at which the person who was able to get the reaction then looks hurt and innocent and invokes posting rules. I think that the ban on direct attacks is designed to avoid that situation. It’s not so much that people can rag on anyone who is not here (though human nature makes it much easier to do so when the person is not around), it is that it would be impossible to police such a wide net that the requirement of being polite to everyone regardless of their presence would demand.
I would also note that Slarti has been pretty good about inviting people who take issue with other people’s blogs/posts outside of ObWi to take it up with them at that location. He hasn’t threatened to ban anyone, but he has firmly directed people to return with their baggage to the point where they picked it up. That seems only fair.
I realize this is a rather un-bright line, but it seems understandable to me, given the circumstances. As always YMMV
Thanks, LJ, and welcome back.*
I think I fall down more squarely on Gary Farber’s side of things; it’s scary to the extent that I find myself agreeing with him. Not to the point where I’d ask him to vote for me in proxy, mind you, but enough that he has my ongoing approval and admiration. For what THAT’s worth. Speaking purely for myself (which, as an aside, has always seemed to me to be superfluous as a disclaimer), I’d prefer to keep things constrained to civility in all things. I’m sure that I fail at this all too frequently, but I think I can separate, for example, my disapproval of President Carter’s foreign policy performance from my opinion of him as a human being, to the extent that I had no problem at all engaging in a handshake and brief conversation with him. There are people with whom I’d decline to have any sort of amicable greeting, but Carter’s nowhere in the neighborhood of the unsharp boundary between human beings and History’s Greatest Monsters. JFTR.
*8)
Oh, and although there have been times when this civil-in-all-things has NOT been the rule with me, I’d like to think that those times are as past tense as beer-bonging. Even if not quite so far in the past.
“I think I fall down more squarely on Gary Farber’s side of things; it’s scary to the extent that I find myself agreeing with him.”
Consider it the sheer power of my logic and arguments.
No, consider it! Obey me! I command you through the power of Satan!
“… I’d like to think that those times are as past tense as beer-bonging.”
It’s possible that you can date me — okay, identify me by age, not actually get me to make a date, unless you’re much cuter than your ASCII suggests — by the fact that I once did the beer, and I once did the bong, but if the combination as such didn’t come later than my college days, I just missed it, which is entirely possibly simply because I missed it, and besides, it was a short three months I didn’t socialize in as much as I should have, anyways.
Meanwhile, back to obeying my commands and arguments and points via my power of Satan. I command you!
“Beer bong” is now called “funnel”, which is much more accurate but loses some of the flavor, so to speak.
Apropos of nothing at all, really…did you ever run into L. Ron Hubbard, in your days of hanging with the SciFi* celebrities?
*I call it SciFi, but what I mean by that is: this loosely-defined genre of fiction for which no terse description can be agreed to. Sadly, WSOGMM is already taken. If you’ve got a more suitable alternative, please let me know.
“did you ever run into L. Ron Hubbard”
And if so, were either of you injured?
Oh, and although there have been times when this civil-in-all-things has NOT been the rule with me, I’d like to think that those times are as past tense as beer-bonging.
For a moment there I thought you’d written “beer-blogging” and I was about to call you a liar 😉
“Apropos of nothing at all, really…did you ever run into L. Ron Hubbard, in your days of hanging with the SciFi* celebrities?”
No, not only was he gone from the direct scene, off on the SeaOrg, but I curse the fact that John W. Campbell was Guest of Honor at Lunacon (the local NYC con) in 1971, when I could have actually taken the subway to get to it, all the way from Midwood, Brooklyn, to Manhattan, but I only missed it through lack of reading my subscriber copy (via my mother’s kindness, I must note, after my being ill in 1969 and subscribing me to all six than extant prozines — who can name them all, as well as the three companies?) about two weeks late.
I missed that, and also Lunacon in 1972, when Ted Sturgeon was GoH (although I later met him, rather casually, several times, as a teenager), and didn’t connect to mainstream local sf fandom in NYC until 1973, although I’d made written contact with sf fanzines from 1971 or so on).
I mostly started hearing about Hubbard’s scams directly from folks such as Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague deCamp (man, that man had the straightest spine I’ve ever seen, although I’ve put that less politely in the past) and Lester del Rey and various other firsthand witnesses in 1973, since you ask.
But subsequent books such as Barefaced Messiah were far more definitive, if less first-hand.
Of course, my first sort-of-semi-direct encounters with skiffy authors came via mimeoed fanzines circa 1971, and my first in-person contact with Them Folks at Robert Heinlein’s 92nd St. appearance in 1972, which I then wrote up in what I had no idea would be my first major fanzine appearance (since I was 13-years-old), and which got me smacked, due to my carelessness in both initial postcard to Dick Geis and subsequent short follow-up, around by my later-online-friend Alexei Panshin.
I’d have sworn I’d said all this here before, but it’s easier to say again than double-check, given that I type reasonably fast.
I really wish I’d met Campbell, though. Even though he’d gone through the Dean Drive (not connected to Howard!) and the Hieronymous Machine, and all sorts of kookery besides Hubbard by then, jeez, he was John W. Campbell! Whose magazine I’d read in microfilm in entirety at the Main Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library at Grand Army Plaza, which I’d taken two buses to get to to read every weekend for the better part of a year to read. (Okay, starting with the F. Orlin Tremaine version in 1933, five years before Campbell was hired in 1938,but I digress, and besides that’s when E. E. Smith got started.)
Since you asked.