Embarrassing Improvements
Norman Geras spots some cultural cringing at The Observer:
“America and Britain talk about human rights and democracy as if their benefits are self-evident and universal. But when it suits their strategic aims, in Latin America, Central Asia or the Middle East, they collaborate with brutal dictatorships.”
OK, so you should practise what you preach. But can’t you also preach what you practise if you do practise it? America and Britain do have a certain record they can point to as democracies. And the benefits of human rights and democracy are universal, aren’t they? Or did The Observer change its spots and retreat from its attachment to liberalism?
“American and European interests will not be served by military grandstanding and asserting the moral superiority of their political systems.”
Hmmm… I thought democratic political systems were superior. I thought The Observer might think this too.
Indeed. The rest.
We have to walk a very thin, nuanced line here. On the one hand, we must engage constructively with governments like Iran and Syria, without demonizing them as “evil” “dictatorships”. Their populations rightly hate us because, while their governments may be unpopular, they don’t need us telling them so.
On the other hand, we must stop supporting those evil dictatorships which we enable by working with them (Egypt, for example). Their populations rightly hate us because we support their unpopular governments.
It’s one thing to suggest pragmatic tact or to point out inconsistencies in our dealings with other states – most of which are the result of what’s plausible or pragmatic rather than what’s ideal – but the Observer editorial seems informed by something else. The assumptions are, I think, rather different, and much less edifying.
If we stopped subsidizing Egypt to the tune of several billion a year we would be hated for starving them to death. This kind of lefty game is one you can’t win, so we shouldn’t bother playing.
So because we don’t or can’t help everyone we shouldn’t say democracy is better than tyranny? Because… what? It will embarrass Communists and dictators?
It’s typical leftist racism: democracy is only for white people.
Why would anyone in China or Russia agitate for the self-loathing liberalism advocated by the Observer?