Commentary Magazine


Posts For: March 8, 2011

The Unrealism of the Russian Reset

As I pointed out on Friday, the revolutions in the Middle East emphasize that our focus on human rights is selective: we pay attention to places that threaten us and places that we are suddenly abashed at having worked with, but we ignore the much wider range of dictatorships where we have few if any interests at stake. That is not surprising: the State Department is programmed to work with whoever is in power, and our capacity for caring is not unlimited. But it is discrediting and wrong nonetheless.

Russia, I acknowledge, is not one of those places we can afford to dismiss diplomatically. Nuclear weapons and oil aside — and that is pretty much all Russia has going for it in the great power sweepstakes — Russia has a UN veto and an almost infinite capacity to make trouble, not least for our supply lines into Afghanistan. But it is one thing to recognize that, in the world as it is, we are sometimes going to have to work with places like Putin’s Russia, and quite another thing to kid ourselves about what they are.  This is just another of our ways of ignoring dictatorships.

Take the announcement from the State Department of a U.S.-Russian dialogue on press freedom. Russia has nothing to contribute to a serious discussion of press freedom, and it is an insult to the concept and to the First Amendment to pretend that it does. But yet we are devoting what likely amounts to several million dollars of public diplomacy funding to engage in the farce of pretending that the U.S. and Russia can have a meaningful “dialogue” on the subject.

Worse, the topics for this “dialogue” appear to have been selected with a view to outraging common sense. There’s the “Business of Media” — which in Putin’s Russia is to be controlled by the state. There’s the “Evolving Profession of Journalism” — that must be hard in Russia, given the regularity with which troublesome Russian journalists end up dead. The fact that the “dialogue” is part of the administration’s non-strategy for Internet freedom — note that, as I predicted, the U.S. and Russia will be discussing “New Media Technologies” and “the freedom to connect” — just adds insult to injury.

All this, of course, is part of the “reset” policy predicated on the notion that Russia can be a reliable partner if only we wish it hard enough. Though sometimes described as realism, in that it ignores human rights, it does not even rise to that level: at least realists care about power. It is a fantasy that demeans us. We have to deal with Russia, but we don’t have to hold public events in which we pretend to respect its nonexistent devotion to freedom.

As I pointed out on Friday, the revolutions in the Middle East emphasize that our focus on human rights is selective: we pay attention to places that threaten us and places that we are suddenly abashed at having worked with, but we ignore the much wider range of dictatorships where we have few if any interests at stake. That is not surprising: the State Department is programmed to work with whoever is in power, and our capacity for caring is not unlimited. But it is discrediting and wrong nonetheless.

Russia, I acknowledge, is not one of those places we can afford to dismiss diplomatically. Nuclear weapons and oil aside — and that is pretty much all Russia has going for it in the great power sweepstakes — Russia has a UN veto and an almost infinite capacity to make trouble, not least for our supply lines into Afghanistan. But it is one thing to recognize that, in the world as it is, we are sometimes going to have to work with places like Putin’s Russia, and quite another thing to kid ourselves about what they are.  This is just another of our ways of ignoring dictatorships.

Take the announcement from the State Department of a U.S.-Russian dialogue on press freedom. Russia has nothing to contribute to a serious discussion of press freedom, and it is an insult to the concept and to the First Amendment to pretend that it does. But yet we are devoting what likely amounts to several million dollars of public diplomacy funding to engage in the farce of pretending that the U.S. and Russia can have a meaningful “dialogue” on the subject.

Worse, the topics for this “dialogue” appear to have been selected with a view to outraging common sense. There’s the “Business of Media” — which in Putin’s Russia is to be controlled by the state. There’s the “Evolving Profession of Journalism” — that must be hard in Russia, given the regularity with which troublesome Russian journalists end up dead. The fact that the “dialogue” is part of the administration’s non-strategy for Internet freedom — note that, as I predicted, the U.S. and Russia will be discussing “New Media Technologies” and “the freedom to connect” — just adds insult to injury.

All this, of course, is part of the “reset” policy predicated on the notion that Russia can be a reliable partner if only we wish it hard enough. Though sometimes described as realism, in that it ignores human rights, it does not even rise to that level: at least realists care about power. It is a fantasy that demeans us. We have to deal with Russia, but we don’t have to hold public events in which we pretend to respect its nonexistent devotion to freedom.

Read Less

What UN Group Should Iran Join Next Given That They’re on the Commission on the Status of Women

I was going to make this post a fully functioning joke poll — with radio buttons and a way to submit your results — but that seemed so immature. The constructive role that Iran is playing in the United Nations is actually very serious business — we’re obviously entering an era of multilateral cooperation the likes of which only Susan Rice can comprehend — so that would have been inappropriate.

So consider this a somewhat serious question. Now that Iran is a member of the Commission on the Status of Women, where else is it going to pitch in around the UN (assuming it has any time left over between its responsibilities and systematically raping female political prisoners before killing them)? Some preliminary ideas:

  • The International Maritime Organization, because Iran’s ability to deploy naval assets in new and particularly efficient ways is impressive.
  • The International Telecommunication Union, because who knows more about cell phones, Internet services, and miscellaneous ICT than the Islamic Republic?
  • The World Tourism Organization, because that’s something it knows about boosting even after destroying non-Islamic landmarks.
  • The International Atomic Energy Agency, because obviously.
  • The United Nations Children’s Fund, because in addition to state-sanctioned rape, it also has state-sanctioned childhood sexual slavery, and I’d make that into a joke, but it’s literally true and stomach-turning.

The administration, and especially Ambassador Rice, insisted that we’d be able to “shape” the UN if we joined execrable groups like the Human Rights Council. That was always a little bit absurd, since the premise — that we won’t have credibility until we crawl into the mud with ruthless despots and hysterical anti-Semites — never quite coalesced.

The argument for joining the HRC couldn’t have been that we would numerically outvote the member dictatorships, since they can and do vote in blocs to protect each other. And it couldn’t have been that we needed to physically be “in the room” to lobby members on specific policies, since we know how to contact ambassadors once they step “out of the room.” If the argument was anything, it was that engaging the UN would give everyone a warm feeling.

That’s obviously an insipid pretense, and it’s always obviously been an insipid pretense, and now Iran is on the Commission on Status of Women. We don’t seem to be doing much “shaping.”

I was going to make this post a fully functioning joke poll — with radio buttons and a way to submit your results — but that seemed so immature. The constructive role that Iran is playing in the United Nations is actually very serious business — we’re obviously entering an era of multilateral cooperation the likes of which only Susan Rice can comprehend — so that would have been inappropriate.

So consider this a somewhat serious question. Now that Iran is a member of the Commission on the Status of Women, where else is it going to pitch in around the UN (assuming it has any time left over between its responsibilities and systematically raping female political prisoners before killing them)? Some preliminary ideas:

  • The International Maritime Organization, because Iran’s ability to deploy naval assets in new and particularly efficient ways is impressive.
  • The International Telecommunication Union, because who knows more about cell phones, Internet services, and miscellaneous ICT than the Islamic Republic?
  • The World Tourism Organization, because that’s something it knows about boosting even after destroying non-Islamic landmarks.
  • The International Atomic Energy Agency, because obviously.
  • The United Nations Children’s Fund, because in addition to state-sanctioned rape, it also has state-sanctioned childhood sexual slavery, and I’d make that into a joke, but it’s literally true and stomach-turning.

The administration, and especially Ambassador Rice, insisted that we’d be able to “shape” the UN if we joined execrable groups like the Human Rights Council. That was always a little bit absurd, since the premise — that we won’t have credibility until we crawl into the mud with ruthless despots and hysterical anti-Semites — never quite coalesced.

The argument for joining the HRC couldn’t have been that we would numerically outvote the member dictatorships, since they can and do vote in blocs to protect each other. And it couldn’t have been that we needed to physically be “in the room” to lobby members on specific policies, since we know how to contact ambassadors once they step “out of the room.” If the argument was anything, it was that engaging the UN would give everyone a warm feeling.

That’s obviously an insipid pretense, and it’s always obviously been an insipid pretense, and now Iran is on the Commission on Status of Women. We don’t seem to be doing much “shaping.”

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.