3

Everything is in the question. Back when the Cold War was raging, diplomatic relations between Eastern Communist governments and Western democracies were awful.

Nowadays, not only are diplomatic relations between Western democracies and dictators of the Middle East and Asian continents good, but there is an incredible amount of trade for goods in China, for example. It does not seem to bother anyone in Western democracies to trade with these countries, and thus directly finance the torture of innocents and even the expansion of the Communist ideology in China.

Why do Western democracies not tell dictators straight up that we do not appreciate their methods, and why do we spend money to protect them with the army when they come for a diplomatic visit when they clearly do not deserve protection?

JonathanReez
  • 50,757
  • 35
  • 237
  • 435
Bregalad
  • 7,371
  • 4
  • 31
  • 67
  • Also related, the choice to hold international sport evens in those dictatorships is related, and maddens me. – Bregalad Sep 07 '15 at 09:39
  • About the last paragraph, I don't think that would be healthy to the diplomatic relations between countries around the world. What if any country could imprison other country's dignataries at will? I am afraid nothing good would come, even if these dignataries are internationally considered guilty of many misdeeds. – Mikel Urkia Sep 07 '15 at 10:14
  • 6
    Have the western propaganda started a new disc, that China is a dictatorship? – Anixx Sep 07 '15 at 11:06
  • 8
    @Anixx China is a dictatorship. This is just a fact; hell, their constitution calls themselves a dictatorship. – cpast Sep 07 '15 at 14:09
  • @cpast maybe their constitution calls it a dictatorship of proletariat (I doubt this), but in reality they are not, do you disagree? – Anixx Sep 07 '15 at 14:18
  • @Mikel Urika You got a point however I'm sure that enprisoning some people and saying you'll set them free if the regime stops torturing oponents can have some dissuasive effect. At least they could not protect the dictator. Feeling that my country's budget is spent in chopters and tanks to protect people who doesn't deserve it is maddening. – Bregalad Sep 07 '15 at 15:26
  • @Bregalad then nobody will simply visit your country. And those politicians from the country whose leaders you imprisoned may be even glad that you imprisoned their rivals, even if not publicly admitting this, thus they will not follow your demands for release. Besides this, why do you think you have right to intervene with the judiciary of another country, demanding from the judges whom to release? It is what the courts should decide, not someone abroad who wants another party at power in a foreign country – Anixx Sep 07 '15 at 17:31
  • 2
    I removed the part about jail as it was distracting from the actual question. – Bregalad Sep 08 '15 at 08:30
  • 1
    "the torture of innocents" - what instances are you referring to? "expansion of the communist ideology" - various countries have different ideologies, if your country has capitalist or liberal ideology, other countries can question why they should deal with your country. In fact, countries often have points to cooperate for the common benefit even with different ideologies. "why do we spend money to protect them with the army" - if your country does not provide sufficient protection, nobody will visit it. – Anixx Sep 08 '15 at 13:47
  • 4
    @cpast China is actually the only working meritocracy in the world, and is doing quite well. It's socialistic, but communistic only by name. /Someone who have lived and worked in China for years – Alex Sep 08 '15 at 19:48
  • 1
    @Anixx "why do you think you have right to intervene with the judiciary of another country" - this is the typical Western behaviour. Take for example, the ridiculous Magnitsky Act issued by the US parliament. – user4035 Sep 08 '15 at 21:45
  • You are of course thinking of the relations between e.g. the USA and Saudi Arabia, right? – Martin Schröder Sep 10 '15 at 05:22
  • 2
    @cpast See https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10546/is-china-considered-to-be-democratic China's constitution states that The People's Republic of China "is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants," and that the state organs "apply the principle of democratic centralism." – liftarn Apr 06 '18 at 07:07
  • The question is hopelessly broad. There are many possible reasons, from business interests and the pursuit of natural resources to the need to protect citizens abroad, support aid work for the vulnerable, and the desire to promote democracy and social change. Dictatorships are not homogenous - some are rich and powerful, some are attempting to reform, some are near collapse. – Stuart F Mar 06 '23 at 08:49

5 Answers5

12

In politics, pragmatism beats idealism.

Let's take the OP's example China. Large parts of the European and American economy depend on Chinese companies as suppliers. A good example is the whole electronics industry. Practically any electronic device which is sold to consumers anywhere in the world contains parts "Made in China". But there are also other, less known markets where the Chinese are world-leading suppliers of critical goods. Risking bad relations with China might lead to trade complications or even a trade embargo. This would likely result in an outright collapse of large economies, because there is simply noone else in the world who can fulfill the demand, especially not as cheap. That means western democracies can simply not afford to ruin their relations with China. And China can't risk it either, because just as dependent as the west is on China as a supplier, China depends on the western world as consumers. This mutual dependence forces the relations to be far better than they should be from a pure ideological standpoint.

When you look at other totalitarian states which have good relations with western democracies, you will always find a reason why that relation is beneficial. Usually either trade relations or military interests.

Philipp
  • 76,766
  • 22
  • 234
  • 272
  • Exactly what I was expecting. Although I am fairly confident the collapse you're talking about will happen in less than 15 years because of China's internal problem, but politicians are failing to see that coming. – Bregalad Sep 08 '15 at 15:42
  • 2
    Take example of Saudi Arabia. Until now, this country is well known for violate human rights but the importance of their natural resources make him a valuable ally. Of course, this could change at any time. Politics is always changing. – nelruk Sep 08 '15 at 15:54
  • Yeah so in other words our comfortable lives are possible only because children are being exploited somewhere else. I already knew that but still this is really depressing I – Bregalad Sep 08 '15 at 15:57
  • @nelruk When it comes to Saudi-Arabia, it's more geopolitical interests. It's the only state in the region which has both the resources and the will to keep factions like ISIS or Al-Quaeda in check. Like with their recent military actions in Yemen, for example. – Philipp Sep 08 '15 at 20:21
  • 3
    @Bregalad It might sound cynical, but when we wouldn't buy their products, those exploited children would be unemployed and would be off even worse. Child labor might be cruel, but currently it's the only thing which prevents these children from starving. Export brings money into these countries which might get them a better future. – Philipp Sep 08 '15 at 20:31
  • @Philipp Err... kids in western democracies do not work in factories and do not starve as far I know. Also if there is really no other choice than making them work they could at least, as a socialist country, make them work in good conditions (i.e. few hours of work per day, good salaries) – Bregalad Sep 08 '15 at 20:46
  • @Bregalad Depending on which country you are currently talking about (certainly not China anymore, because child labour isn't very common there), various circumstances could mean that no, there is not much the government could do about it. – Philipp Sep 08 '15 at 20:55
7

Simply said: That's what diplomacy is about and it's useful. My own impression is that it's the urge to take a moral stance about everything that is new. And you have got to ask what purpose being all righteous would serve apart from giving the local public an occasion to feel smug.

There is no reason to think that it's an effective way to bring about change and even if Western democracies really had the power to remake other countries in their image, it's not entirely unproblematic to dictate (once again!) what they should do, even if it's apparently for the greater good.

What happened during the Cold War was very different. First of all, the two blocks did have diplomatic relations and you can find many interesting nuances (e.g. the way the People's Republic of China was treated), it's not like they did not talk at all.

Secondly, this was more about traditional power politics than a consistent moral compass. Everybody had allies that should have been unpleasant in light of their official ideology. Thus, the US could shun Cuba but cozy up to unsavoury dictators in Africa and elsewhere.

Of course, immunity is a sine qua non of diplomacy, a rule invented to move away from earlier practices like killing ambassadors and sending back their heads when you weren't happy about something. There is a very good reason it exists, especially between states that don't trust each other. Note that Western diplomats and international organisations also benefit from it and rely on it daily.

Relaxed
  • 30,938
  • 2
  • 75
  • 109
  • 3
    There is no reason to think that it's an effective way to bring about change and even if Western democracies really had the power to remake other countries in their image, it's not entirely unproblematic to dictate (once again!) what they should do, even if it's apparently for the greater good. The German Ostpolitik's main Mantra was "Change through convergence" and that was kinda successful – user45891 Sep 07 '15 at 19:10
0

There are three reasons that you don't seem to have considered.

  1. Politics is not about morality. This is quite obvious by looking at the history of any nation. Morality is a tool for politicians, nothing more. People in Western nations generally don't care about the people being oppressed in nations halfway across the world. North Korea has the worst prisons imaginable, and Saudi Arabia (a country many Western countries sell weapons to) has genuine witch-hunts, but until it affects them, even indirectly, they will usually stay quiet. Politicians only care about using morality to manipulate public opinion.
  2. It's not even as simple, morally, as saying "they're evil, let's topple them and get some good guys in". There are parts of the world which, let's face it, are kind of a mess. So we support the regimes that aren't quite as bad with the hopes that we can work with them to make things better, rather than toppling them and ending up with someone worse. You can't magically make everything better overnight, you have to support whoever has the most chance of improving the situation.
  3. If you topple a government, you have to deal with the fallout. If you invaded North Korea, or even had it's leader assassinated, you would have to deal with millions of starving refugees that don't know how to use any modern technology. That might be the moral thing to do, but it's not a sound economic strategy and won't be good politically.

I might add that leaders generally only visit countries that are unlikely to risk war by jailing them. If Kim Jong-un decided to visit the US, you can be damn sure he'd end up in jail, hence why he's not likely to try.

Also, I don't know of any Western countries that can be said to have "excellent" relations with dictatorships. They're more somewhat begrudging acknowledgements of their existence. Let's count the ones I know off by heart:

  • Iran's only now resuming some semblance of diplomacy with the West.
  • Gaddafi was certainly no friend of the West when he was in power.
  • Islamic State is being bombed by pretty much everyone.
  • Relations with Putin's Russia are deteriorating daily, and when it was the Soviet Union, there was a thing called the Cold War.
  • China's really not that bad, but there are diplomatic consequences to their actions when they're naughty.
  • North Korea mentions every other week that they plan on burning the US in nuclear fire, and rights organisations constantly criticise them.
  • Saudi Arabia is a complicated case, given the number of extremists in the country that they somehow keep in line.
  • Cuba is, I think, still under embargo by the US.
PointlessSpike
  • 1,937
  • 11
  • 23
  • It is safe to say that when the US is "naughty" as you say, there are no diplomatic consequences. – Jose Luis Sep 07 '15 at 12:19
  • 1
    Um. Actually, there have been plenty of diplomatic consequences. The US isn't exactly well thought-of in the Muslim world. That's a diplomatic consequence. The UN has repeatedly condemned the US for invading Iraq and for Guantanamo Bay. In fact, I'd say that US foreign relations as a whole suffered greatly under Bush, and is only now starting to improve a little. – PointlessSpike Sep 07 '15 at 12:26
  • Consequences that made tangible change to US policy? I think not. – Jose Luis Sep 07 '15 at 12:31
  • Apparently they did. The fact that the US hasn't done anything about Islamic State should be an indication of that. Compare the Bush administration's actions to Obama's and you can see a hell of a lot of change. Sure, they've done some bad stuff, but nowhere near as bad. – PointlessSpike Sep 07 '15 at 12:33
  • 2
    You call this not "doing anything"? Obama led airstrikes against many countries since his term began. The only difference is that he isn't sending troops. Not really an exception or change in US history. – Jose Luis Sep 07 '15 at 12:47
  • Actually, that's a huge change. Beyond anything else, it means the difference between "let's give some people a helping hand" and "you're useless, we're taking over" – PointlessSpike Sep 07 '15 at 13:36
  • @PointlessSpike There is a consequence for not taking any actions against dictatorships : Wave of refugees from those countries – Bregalad Sep 07 '15 at 13:56
  • 1
    @Bregalad The waves of refugees are not because of the so-called dictators but from encouraging rebellions and civil wars by the western powers. Since the regimes are not supportive of some western opinions and policies. – Jose Luis Sep 07 '15 at 14:12
  • @Bregalad- I did address this in the answer. You'll get more refugees when a country is turned into a warzone. Syrian refugees have been in the news quite a lot lately. You wouldn't have so many if Syria was uncontested. – PointlessSpike Sep 07 '15 at 14:21
  • @PointlessSpike Actually, the current civil war would not have happened if Bachar Al Assad's dictatorship would not have been supported by the western democracies in the past. – Bregalad Sep 07 '15 at 15:22
  • @Bregalad- Do you know that for a fact? Or would there simply have been a civil war earlier, perhaps a lengthier one? Perhaps Islamists would now be in charge. It's impossible to say for certain, but the control IS now has should tell you that it's not as cut and dry as saying that Assad is a bad guy and everyone else is good. – PointlessSpike Sep 08 '15 at 07:43
  • @PointlessSpike I think we're falling in the opinion based here, but IS is a direct result of Al Assad's policy, people were so desperate they tried something else. Had his regime's brutality be somehow reduced, all this would never have happened, at least not that way. – Bregalad Sep 08 '15 at 08:26
  • @Bregalad- Perhaps, but you could also say that support from the West may have tempered him if there was a threat of it being removed if he acted inappropriately. I'm not saying, "Support all dictators", I'm just explaining why Western politicians act the way they do. – PointlessSpike Sep 08 '15 at 08:59
  • @Bregalad Saying that Assad is solely to blame is also wrong. For example one cannot ignore the droughts which destroyed the life of many people, who were then more likely to rebel http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/?no-ist – user45891 Sep 08 '15 at 10:45
  • You know what's annoying? People find fault with the premise of my answer which is actually pretty sound, but they don't notice that I said there were two points and then listed three! – PointlessSpike Sep 08 '15 at 12:11
0

Why does western democracies not tell straight up to the dictators that we do not appreciate their methods, and why do we not put them in jail for they crimes when they come for a diplomatic visit instead of protecting them with the army and so on ?

You may be confusing diplomacy with military force.

Both are complex and hardly black and white, simple-to-manage processes. But diplomacy is nearly always preferred as it tends to cost a whole lot less both in money and lives. Jumping right to the military option stating "we will jail dictators" is not a practical solution (as you may have noticed over these past few decades in the middle east) :)

-1

The rulers (which is not the same as the governments) of all countries care about one thing: increasing and/or protecting their wealth. This also applies to countries referred to as "western democracies". (It is hard to speak of a real democracy in a country such as the US where winning a presidential election costs $1 billion and where that $1 billion comes from a few very wealthy donors.)

A dictatorship in China, absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia, and authoritarian regimes past and current all over the world are perfectly acceptable to the rulers of "western democracies" as long as they are useful for achieving that one goal - expanding the rulers' wealth and power.

Once a regime becomes an obstacle to achieving the above goal, "western democracies" attempt replace it, by force if necessary, with a more cooperative regime as witnessed in Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, Iran, etc.

The recent events suggest that the current regime in China, after being useful for almost 40 years, is transitioning in the "not useful" group.

ebhh2001
  • 985
  • 1
  • 7
  • 13