From on High

I retort. You decide.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

Yalta

Angus makes a good point in response to my post about Bush's comments yesterday; namely, that FDR's only alternative to selling out Eastern Europe to the Soviets was a long and bloody war with Russia. It does certainly seem naive to expect (as Bush seems to) that FDR should have taken a hard line against the ally who suffered by far the most deaths of anyone in the war. And it does seem possible that a more hostile stance by the U.S. would have led to another horrific blood-letting. But I have doubts as to whether Russia would have really been willing to fight a protracted war for its territory in Eastern Europe. Whatever the case, I think it's fair to say that the world would have been hugely better off if the timing had been just slightly different. If only Yalta had occurred six months later, after the U.S. had the nuclear option up its sleeve, we would have been able to exercise far greater leverage over the Soviets, greatly diminshing their spoils and subsequent power.

Is Bush's statement pandering? I can see how one would say so. On the other hand, I think it was more likely an attempt to fit the administration's Iraq policy within a larger conceptual framework, and a radical one at that. Later in his speech, Bush clearly alludes to Iraq, saying the U.S. will no longer appease tyranny "for the sake of stability." His basic point seems to be "Look, in the past, we've been forced by pragmatic considerations and realpolitik to gloss over oppressive regimes and to sacrifice democracy for the sake of international order. I hereby give notice that we will no longer do so. We will not make peace with tyrants to preserve the status quo." In other words, he seems to be applying the U.S.'s "no negotiation rule" with terrorists to a nation-state level. It's a bold policy that flies in face of centuries of conventional wisdom about statecraft. Of course there is still reason to believe Bush is not really serious about it (See, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). Regardless, it will be interesting to see how much "stability" guides U.S. policy as we maneuver through the scary minefields of our policies towards Iran and North Korea.

2 Comments:

Blogger John Burgess said...

I think you're missing the pressure the US is putting on Saudi Arabia. It's also having an effect, as the President noted in his remarks about the Saudi municipal elections.

If you're interested in just what reform is going on in the KSA, you can look into my blog Crossroads Arabia.

6:38 AM  
Blogger From on High said...

Fair enough, Hatcher. Although I think it's hard to deny that the regime in Saudi Arabia is, despite its reforms, far from the model we would like to promote in the region. Of course we have many legitimate reasons to keep it in power and equally many reasons why pressure to change should be exerted behind the scenes in a manner that preserves our crucial interests. Indeed sacrificing some of our interests to promote others is hard for a President to avoid; I think FDR's Yalta agreement was a prime example of that.

Nonetheless, Bush should be congratulated for trying to outline a principled American foreign policy and renouncing the relativistic pragmatism that so often guides the European approach.

By the way, Crossroads Arabia is an excellent and thoughtful site. I would recommend it to all.

12:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home