Lawrence J.
Haas
Read Larry's bio and previous columns
June 30, 2009
America’s
Human Rights Challenges Extend Beyond Iran
Tehran’s brutal
crackdown on democracy-hungry protestors may have defeated the most
serious threat to the Iranian regime since the Islamic Revolution of
1979, but the Obama Administration will continue to face the questions
about how to respond to such uprisings and when to promote democracy
around the world.
These questions offer
no easy answers. Cultures vary, dictators rule with different kinds of
iron fists and no one knows when a rebellion will gather the necessary
steam to oust an oppressor.
Who could have
predicted that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to reform his
nation through perestroika and glasnost in the 1980s would fuel its
disintegration, that Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu would be booed
off stage during an open-air address in late 1989 and then flee from
office, or that Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos would be driven
from office after calling for presidential elections in 1986 and then
fraudulently claiming victory afterwards?
History does, however,
suggest some realities that the administration would be well-advised to
keep in mind in the months ahead, for it surely will face the challenge
again – perhaps many times – as to what to say and what to do when
people in a foreign land seek to cast off the yoke of oppression.
First, even if a
president remains silent during a democratic insurrection, America will
almost surely become part of the story.
A regime under siege
will find it all-too convenient to rally support by painting its
opponents as U.S. lackeys. The recent turmoil in Iran makes the point:
As President Obama declared his intention not to meddle, Iran’s top
leaders were already blaming the protests on the United States and
Israel.
Second, leading
democratic activists often yearn for a U.S. president to publicly
support their efforts, because it both helps boost morale among the
dissidents and also raises the stakes for the regime.
Former Soviet dissident
Natan Sharansky has described how his cell block in a Soviet gulag
erupted in celebration upon hearing the news that President Reagan had
labeled the Soviet Union the “evil empire.”
Reagan’s voice also
helped bring the pressure that led to Sharansky’s release in a
U.S.-Soviet prisoner exchange. Whether Obama follows suit could
determine the fate of Sharansky’s successors across the globe.
“When Obama does not
take a stance, the very next day these oppressive regimes will regard
this as a signal,” Ayman Nour, the opposition leader to Egyptian
strongman Hosni Mubarak whose activities have landed him in jail, told
the Washington Post recently. “This is a test for his government.
If they can turn a blind eye to their enemy, they can turn a blind eye
to any action here in Egypt.”
Third, despite what
post-America theorists suggest, America retains an enormous capacity to
shape world events.
By convincing the
social networking site Twitter not to close for maintenance, the
administration ensured that Iranian protestors retained this vehicle for
sharing information. That’s little different from how, a quarter-century
ago, the Reagan Administration and labor groups in the United States and
Europe smuggled copiers, fax machines and other communication devices
into Soviet-dominated Poland to help Solidarity, the trade union, rally
support for human rights.
Fourth, presidents need
not choose between promoting democracy in an authoritarian society and
engaging with its masters. They can do both.
President Roosevelt
worked with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany during
World War II after earlier promoting a world “founded upon four
essential human freedoms” (of speech, of religion, from want, and from
fear), all of them in very short supply across the Soviet empire.
President Kennedy
successfully negotiated the nuclear test ban treaty with Soviet leader
Nikita Khrushchev in mid-1963 – just a month after making clear, in his
“Ich bin ein Berliner” speech near Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, that the
United States stood with everyone behind the Iron Curtain who sought
freedom.
Fifth and finally,
history suggests the United States would be wise to align itself with
the forces of democracy, rather than with creaky autocracies in the
Middle East and elsewhere whose days could well be numbered.
To be sure,
authoritarian regimes of late have been digging in, and they have
secured some recent successes. But their victories cannot obscure the
larger reality – that democracy has spread far and wide in recent
decades.
It will spread further.
And when it does, the United States must not find itself on the wrong
side of history.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is Column #
LH037.
Request permission to publish here. |