RSSDemocracy and the WikiLeaks cables
Jan 27
Good read: Whispering at Autocrats.
I hadn’t previously heard of the relation of the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt to the cables, but that’s interesting (and maybe me just not paying close enough attention).
As someone who has spent his entire life in a democracy, the thought of millions of people, a majority of a country, being willing to take orders from someone that they dislike, and who oppresses them, feels completely odd. Plus, trying to get “change” in the West often means donating money to politicians or volunteering to get them elected, so it’s all the more amazing that people are risking their lives to improve their country.
Jan 28, 2011 @ 09:08:48
In Egypt the ruling party has been rigging elections for so long that faith in the system has eroded away. What few political opponents are left are puppets with no experience governing anyway.
The #1 thing democracy got right was term limits. We may occasionally elect a moron or a dictator but they can’t stay in power forever and maybe the next guy will be better.
Of course, when the politicians spend half their term in preparation for the next election, it can result in short term thinking like passing massive unfunded tax cuts to buy votes for reelection or standing in the way of much needed legislation to curry favor with some fringe interest group.
Jan 28, 2011 @ 10:19:37
“NGO contacts estimate there are literally hundreds of torture incidents every day in Cairo police stations alone,” one cable said. Some middle-class Egyptians did not report thefts from their apartment blocks because they knew the police would immediately go and torture “all of the doormen”, the cable added.
When injustice is institutionalized, revolution is the only answer.
Still think Wikileaks isn’t journalism? It looks a lot different when it’s not your secrets being leaked.
Jan 28, 2011 @ 10:26:56
I don’t really think WikiLeaks itself is journalism, but I think we’re differing on purely semantic grounds. WikiLeaks is a data dump. I’ve always thought journalism requires a journalist to provide some insight, context and interpretation. But, Wikileaks has provided tons of data for journalists. Having said all that, I think it’d probably be fine for Wikileaks members to have the same protection as journalists since they’re so interrelated.
Jan 31, 2011 @ 12:57:40
I’ll concede that a data dump isn’t really journalism. At some point, real journalists are supposed to step in and try to confirm the details, but people seem to take Wikileaks largely at face value. I think that by villainizing Assange and Wikileaks, governments of the world have indirectly lent them massive credibility.
But back to your original article, which seems to imply either that traditional behind-the-scenes diplomacy doesn’t work, or that the US has been cozying up to oppressive regimes and ignoring human rights abuses by strategic allies. If US diplomats know these things, what is their responsibility? To push back and risk alienating allies and disrupting a volatile peace? Or remain silent while continuing to pay lip service to vague ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’?
More basic: Was the US wrong to back corrupt, anti-democratic regimes for so long? Or is the relative stability of the middle east worth ignoring the plight of citizens there? Or has the US position become so weak that there was really nothing they could have done to make real change in Egypt through diplomacy? What about the weapons and surveillance technology the US provided to Egypt? They weren’t at war, so obviously those tools were going to be used internally, against their own people.
Jan 31, 2011 @ 13:30:50
Hasn’t it always been known that the US supports oppressive regimes when it’s in their strategic interests?
From my point of view, it should almost always be wrong to support a corrupt, oppressive, regime. But, I can just imagine someone saying “well, by supporting Egypt this led to greater stability in the middle east and almost everyone benefited because…. ?” So I’ll just leave it that I don’t know.
Feb 02, 2011 @ 09:02:46
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but one comment on this caught my eye. The Israelis have said that a democratic Egypt is a threat to their national security because any government that reflects the opinions of the people will likely be less friendly to Israel.
So it could even be true that the US has supported Mubarak to prevent democracy from spreading in Egypt, not only by arming his police with tear gas helpfully labeled “Made in US” but by looking the other way when the results of his staged elections were obviously fraudulent.
Personally I think they give democracy too much credit, elected leaders do the opposite of public opinion all the time.
Feb 02, 2011 @ 09:18:49
I’ve seen similar commentary too. An interviewed Israeli said something like “Well, I don’t know if this will be a good thing or not, depends what it means for us.”
My thought was: that’s awfully selfish. You’d rather see an oppressive government than a democratically elected one, as long as it’s more convenient for you? It very well may be awkward for Israel to have to deal with Egypt on (possibly) real terms, rather than through a dictator who was ignoring many of the long-standing problems to gain favor with the US. But, I can’t see how democracy can ever lead to worse outcomes in the long-term.
Even looking at the Palestinians after electing Hamas, it may have worsened things in some ways in the short term, but I’d bet it may prove positive in the long-term. Maybe it has shown the Palestinians they really won’t get anywhere by embracing the extreme side of their revolution.