NATIONAL INTERESTS, CHAMPIONING DEMOCRACY, AND MSM DOUBLE STANDARDS

COMMENTARY

by Gordon Hahn

The U.S. mainstream media is fond not only of criticizing Russia’s soft (in my view) authoritarianism––but also is fond of cozying up to, and defending authoritarian regimes elsewhere.

To the point, a January 11, 2011 New York Times editorial titled “Lukashenko’s Gulag” castigated Moscow for supporting Belarus’s autocrat Alexander Lukashenko: “Mr. Lukashenko clearly thinks that his improving relations with Russia means he can thumb his nose at the West. The Kremlin, of course, said nothing about the stolen election and has enabled him with recent oil and gas agreements. Europe and the United States must now push back hard. There is little hope for democratic change in Belarus unless Mr. Lukashenko is forced to pay a stiff price for his abuses.”

But as the U.S. has been reminded recently in Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, and elsewhere, they too have been complicit in foreign authoritarian regimes, including by way ‘enabling them with oil and gas agreements.’  Parapharasing the NYT, substituting a few key words, highlights the hypocrisy: The U.S., of course, did nothing for decades about the repression of opposition in Saudi Arabia. It enabled the Wahhabi regime with recent oil and gas agreements. One can say the same about the repression of dissidents in China while enabling the communist regime with lucrative business ties.

The dilemma here should be obvious, but there was little critique heard of such relationships on the pages and airwaves of the U.S.mainstream media.  One would like to chalk up the lack of a critique to realism on their part about conducting foreign policy in a dangerous, complex, and often ugly world.  Alas, this is hardly the case, as the NYT commentary on Russia’s Belarus policy makes clear.  When is the last time the NYT referred to China’s Gulag?  One, incidentally, that is very real and and expansive unlike said in Belarus.

The double standard is apparent in another mainstream media articulation regarding the the West’s friendly relations with another post-Soviet autocrat: Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarabev.  The Economist noted: “But like him or not, Mr Nazarbayev is seen by many, including foreign investors, as providing stability. This is highly cherished in Central Asia’s volatile neighbourhood, where last year’s bloody overthrow of Kyrgyzstan’s president, soon followed by ethnic violence and the introduction of a parliamentary republic, were seen as disasters. Although Mr Nazarbayev runs the country with an iron hand, he is not an outright dictator.  Less of a control freak than Mr Karimov, he is a pragmatist who is credited with creating prosperity” (“Long Live the Khan,” Economist, January 2011, www.economist.com/node/17858817.)  

Freedom House’s rating of the level of democracy among the world’s countries gives Kazakhstan, Russia and, by the way, Egypt and Iraq a 5.5 rating - 1 is high democracy – 7 is high authoritarianism (see www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=546&year=2010.) Can anyone recall any U.S. mainstream media outlet downplaying Putin’s dictatorial credentials while emphasizing his pragmatic support of stability?  Can anyone recall the torrent of articles highlighting Kazakhstan authoritarianism, corruption and criminality one finds almost daily in the U.S. mainstream media on ‘former KGB chief’ Putin’s Russia? 

With regard to the foreign policy issue and the balance between realism and pro-democracy idealism, all countries have to make trade offs between their own interests and the kinds of leaders they must deal with to protect those interests.  To be sure, democracy ranks lower on the priority list of Russian domestic and foreign policy than it does on the U.S. list, but interests are relevant here as well.  Kazakhstan’s energy potential and geostrategic location trump its human rights violations both in Washington and Moscow.

Freedom House’s rating gives Belarus, China, and Saudi Arabia all a dismal 6.5 rating.  In each case, good Russian or U.S. relations with these countries are driven by balancing their respective interests against the costs of challenging their dictatorial partners.  For example, Russia is concerned about NATO expansion around its border.  As long as Belarus remains friendly to Moscow and/or authoritarian, the likelihood Minsk will enter NATO is nil.  The U.S. is concerned about China’s growing military might, its possession of U.S. debt, and its potential conflict with Taiwan.  As long as the U.S. refrains from pressuring China to democratize or punishing it for failing to do so, the U.S. has less to worry about from China’s leverage and power.  Similarly, the U.S. economy’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil has greatly reduced Washington’s incentives over the years to push Arab democracy in places like Saudi Arabia.  In Iran, the Obama Administration showed about as much interest as Moscow did in supporting the ‘Green Revolution.’ 

However, the demagogues at the NYT and other U.S. mainstream media showed no desire to accommodate even the possibility that Russia has legitimate security interests, as evidenced by nearly two decades of championing that very same NATO expansion to Russia’s borders that peaks Moscow’s interest in the status quo in Minsk.

Thus, when U.S. President Joseph Biden and numerous mainstream media commentators and think tank analysts urge rejecting Russia’s WTO bid until Russia cleans up its human rights record, one is forced to ask: Where were the champions of democracy and human rights when China, with its much worse human rights record, won entry into the WTO over a decade ago? (On Biden’s March 10^th remarks to Russian human rights activists see Jim Heintz and David Nowak, “Biden: Russia's WTO entry linked to human rights,” Associated Press, 10 March 2011). 

Before the recent Arab revolutionary crisis, how many articles critical of Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia appeared in the U.S. mainstream media as compared to those critical of Russia?  How many analyses of the potential for revolution in Russia were printed compared to those examining the potential for the same in the Arab world prior to the present instability? 

Sound analysis and good reporting are seldom served by either playing politics or the quest for the self-satisfaction of the politically correct self-righteous pose.

Comments

[kyv]

thanks