[Peace-discuss] American capacity for self-delusion

[patton paul]

Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution
World Knows our Foreign Policy Better Than We Do
by Jay Bookman


Sometimes, when you catch a glimpse of yourself through the eyes of
friends, the perspective is sobering.

Earlier this week, I sat down to talk with more than 20 young men and
women from nations ranging from China and Nigeria to Colombia and Egypt.
They work in U.S. embassies in their native countries and are traveling
the United States to learn something about their new employer. For about
an hour, they pelted me with questions about the American media, the
American public and, most of all, American attitudes toward the rest of
the world.

I can't say how much they learned from my answers; I do know that I
learned an awful lot from their questions. While they seemed to have a
strong attraction to this country, or at least to the idealism and hope
that America offers, it was undercut by a deep frustration approaching
anger.

One question in particular struck home. I wasn't taking notes, but I'll
try to paraphrase it:

"We watch the American government be friends with this dictator over here
and support him, because he will give you the oil or minerals or something
that you want," one person stood up to say. "But then with this other
dictator over there, who is not so friendly and cooperative, you will
start talking about democracy just so you can get rid of him. This is so
hypocritical, to use democracy this way, like a weapon. Do Americans think
that the world does not understand what it is you are doing?"

Boy, now how would you answer that one? As he knew and I knew, he's right.
In the past, we have used talk of democracy not as a core American
principle, but to justify and disguise attacks on leaders who dare to defy
us. Even the Bush administration, with its push for what the president
calls a "global democratic revolution," acknowledges the history but
promises that those days have ended. The short version of its new
pro-democracy policy is, "This time we really mean it."

But we don't. Our discussion took place Monday. That very day, 80-year-old
Heidar Aliyev, the longtime ruler of Azerbaijan, was being buried in the
capital city of Baku. A former KGB general who had run Azerbaijan when it
was part of the Soviet Union, Aliyev had continued his harsh rule as
dictator after the country became independent in 1993. His funeral was
attended by his successor as president of Azerbaijan -- his 41-year-old
son, Ilham Aliyev.

The younger Aliyev had been "elected" president in October with 80 percent
of the vote in an election that international observers dismissed as a
sham. Afterward, street protests were brutally suppressed, opposition
figures tossed in prison and opposition press muzzled. And yet, shortly
after the fake election, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld arrived
in Baku to congratulate Aliyev on his victory, express support and,
according to Azerbaijani officials, to negotiate the stationing of
thousands of U.S. troops on bases in Azerbaijan.

Why? Because Azerbaijan possesses enormous reserves of oil and natural
gas, hosts a strategically critical oil pipeline and shares a border with
Iran. It's a troubling echo of events that occurred 20 years ago this
week, when Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad to greet a man named Saddam
Hussein.

Rumsfeld's 1983 visit came mere weeks after Iraq had used chemical weapons
against Iran, a crime against humanity that Rumsfeld was polite enough not
to mention to Saddam. In 1984, after Saddam used nerve gas against the
Iranians, the United States punished Iraq by restoring full diplomatic
relations. In 1988, when Saddam used poison gas against his own people,
U.S. officials at first tried to shift public blame to Iran, then squashed
a Senate resolution condemning Saddam. A little while later, we gave
Saddam $1 billion in agricultural credits.

That history is unfamiliar to most Americans, but the rest of the world
knows it all too well. They know that when we finally moved against
Saddam, it was not to advance democracy or human rights, but because it
suited our national interests, just as today it suits us to back a
dictator such as Aliyev. They know, because they watch what we do with the
same intensity that you would watch a 600-pound tiger locked in the same
room with you. They watch every move, and they remember.

That explains, I think, why Americans are so often surprised when other
countries express resentment, distrust and even anger at U.S. policies. We
look at ourselves in the mirror and see a decent citizen of the world,
strong but fair and devoted to the cause of democracy. But increasingly,
even our friends look at us in dismay at our capacity for self-delusion.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.

 2003 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution