As the most powerful nation in world history, what foreign policy stance should the US adopt in situations such as the following. Should it support democratically elected governments even if that government is openly hostile to the US, or should it seek to undermine such governments, even at the cost of installing a dictator, if that dictator is friendly to the US?
Take Pakistan, for example. Musharaff gained power via a coup, but has held elections since, in which he retained power. say though that a fundamentalist Islamic group gained power in those elections (apparently they came close): should the US uphold the principle that all people have the right to self-determination, even if the islamist government openly sponsors anti-US terrorism? or should it seek to restore Musharaff or another dictator who is relatively friendly, or at least co-operative to an extent, toward the US?
In most debates of this kind, those who support the first option tend to argue in terms of what would be the 'right' thing to do, or what is legal under international law - that is, they think rather idealistically. Those who argue for the second option think rather in pragmatic terms - what is required to ensure the continued ascendacy of the West, its prosperity and its values.
Of course, the latter are in a bind, because it seems they are advocating destroying those values in the country in question, in order to uphoild them. If these values are regarded as applying universally to all people, then there is a real problem. On the other hand, attempting to uphold the principles universally may lead to a situation where the US and its allies are diminished in influence due to the actions of a determined enemy that does not consider itself bound by the same rules...
Good questions.
Here is my point of view:
A country really should have it's own best interests at heart. An ideal situation would be that a foreign nation was friendly. Anything else is an ideological matter.
If a country is otherwise friendly, but oppresses it's own people, you have to decide what is most important to you.
A friendly dictator is better than a hostile democracy, in my view.
The problem the US has, is that it believes that democracy is the best system (I'm not saying I disagree), and that everybody should have it (although history has shown they can tolerate friendly dictators). So, I think the thing to do is: toleration but not encouragement of dictators who are friendly.
As for hostile democracies, it isn't possible to oppose them on ideological grounds, I don't think. Deposing the government to install a dictatorship is not defensible. An outright military attack is more logical, or trade embargoes, etc.
1. What is a democracy?
The average democracy on this planet is a government voted in by less than half of the electorate (not even counting citizens who cannot vote, such as refugees, illegal citizens and in some countries criminals). With big business having more influence on government than people who voted for the government.
It might seem idealic, and the basis probably is, but the way democracy has evolved isn't very democratic (as in the word), but more corporate with a tang of nationalism (Our system is better than theirs...).
The governments who serve corporate interests by over throwing democracies elsewhere and supporting dictators in other regions generally do so with 'national interest' at heart.
And just look at the big multi-nationals raking in profits!
2. Consequencies schmonsequencies
I think one has to realise the consequencies of each action, to be able to judge the merits properly.
What is the long term effect of supporting a dictator?
What is the long term effect of bringing down a democracy?
If you support a dictator because he favours you, but not his own people, you run the risk of a alienating a whole people.
If you bring down a democracy you also alienate a whole people.
Look at every country or empire which has gone about this business. They all trip across more and more hostility towards them.
Eventually they stumble and fall.
3. Who are we to judge?
Quite simply put: What makes a democracy better than any other form of government.
Look at Cuba. Cuba has had a trade embargo on it for over 30 years (or is it 40?) yet they have more doctors per head of the population than the US.
Look at the Soviet Union 15 years ago. They were producing more people with higher degrees than any other country.
Look at various African tribes. Complete harmoney.
Look at the Roman empire (where only a minority had the vote). They lasted hundreds of years and invented many of the devices which give us the most luxioury.
Look at our great Western democracies and look at the state of the planet's health.
I dunno....
Except (ref: the anarchism debate in the Spanish Election thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=9446)
The US is a Republic. Representative government. Elected leadership by the masses. Yes, the electoral college is not the same thing. It was a compromise to allow smaller states to actually have a way to counter-balance the wills of larger states, something that could not be easily done with a pure vote. (not going to debate electoral college here, just explaining the difference).
Is the choice which is better on a personal point of view, from a member of the population of the country which is making the choice or is it from the point of view of the POTUS?
The former would probably say, democracy. let the people be. The latter would say, friendly dictator? I'm pretty much for it. Anything that would assist in the agenda to accomplish x on territory of or in cooperation with the country is a bonus. As a leader of a free country, I'd *like* to put some pressure on the friendly dictator to reduce the oppression on the people, but is the country China or is the country (not that it's necessarily a dictatorship) Libya? It'll be easy to apply muscle in an international community, even somewhat surreptitiously against a dictatorship like Cuba. It'd be harder to do so against such a large developed and defensive country as China. (I know, China isn't exactly a dictatorship, either.)
Frankly, foreign opinion polls shouldn't have too much effect on the sovreignty of a nation. I'm sure that an elected leader of a given country isn't too concerned about the feelings toward that leader from the people of another country.