Dictatorships and a different double-standard

.

Four decades ago, Jeane Kirkpatrick published her famous article, “Dictatorships and Double Standards.” Today, it appears we have confronted a different problem of the same name.

Over the past four years, critics of former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy have relied on a straw man characterization of Trump’s relationship with allies and adversaries. They have argued that unlike previous U.S. leaders, Trump cozied up to dictators and alienated our friends. The evidence from his tenure simply does not support this argument. If anything, the United States has strengthened its bonds with our friends and stood up to our enemies.

The scholars and pundits who have relied on this mischaracterization focus their criticism on Trump’s meetings with Vladimir Putin of Russia and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. In their view, merely talking with these leaders constituted an unspeakable moral offense. Yet in both of these cases, the U.S. had tangible, realpolitik reasons for engaging in dialogue.

Russia is an important geopolitical actor in international politics. The U.S. has an interest in cooperating with Russia in a number of areas, including counterterrorism. In the case of North Korea, when Trump took office, the U.S. approach to containing the regime’s nuclear program had failed for decades. No president had ever attempted direct talks as a means of reducing tensions in the region. In a state such as North Korea, where so much of the politics centers on Kim’s cult of personality, direct engagement was certainly worthy of consideration. Notably, talks did not commence with North Korea until after Trump had condemned the regime’s egregious human rights abuses in an address to South Korea’s National Assembly and invited a North Korean defector and human rights advocate to be one of his State of the Union guests.

Critics of Trump’s approach also seem to apply a double standard to Trump’s policies. While lambasting Trump for his openness to diplomatic engagement, they conveniently forget that the previous administration did not just talk with, but made deals with some of the world’s most notorious dictators. First, the Obama administration signed a one-sided nuclear agreement with the leading state sponsor of both terrorism and anti-Semitism: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Second, the administration normalized relations with the most destabilizing actor in the Western Hemisphere: the Communist Party of Cuba. Iran and Cuba are among the world’s most infamous human rights abusers. Iran has moreover threatened complete annihilation of Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Cuba, for its part, has also enabled socialist rule in Venezuela, which has an equally grotesque human rights record.

The last administration sacrificed Israel’s security as a poker chip in a dangerous, self-centered game of political brinkmanship. Trump reversed the policy of appeasement with Iran and defended the safety of the Jewish homeland and its people. He also preserved justice for countless Cuban and Venezuelan Americans who fled the brutal regimes in Havana and Caracas.

During Trump’s tenure, the U.S. restored its credibility with many strategic allies, including some of the world’s largest democracies. He was honored as the first state guest in Japan’s Reiwa Era; he set a new, positive course for U.S.-India relations; he assured Poland that it could rely on the U.S. again; and he grounded U.S. foreign policy in Latin America in our relationship with a democracy, Brazil, not a communist dictatorship.

All of these successes were not enough for those who still thought Trump was just too mean to poor, sensitive Germany. He was simply too harsh in pushing NATO allies to meet the commitments of Article 3 of the NATO charter. After all, how would our European friends protect themselves from Russia? As Trump made clear, they could start by not making themselves dependent on Russian oil. Military analysis further demonstrates that Europe has the capability to defend itself from Russia. Those are the facts — the science of the matter, so to speak, that critics of Trump’s approach often claim Republicans disregard.

Finally, there is an important moral question in the case of America’s alliances. In light of these considerations, why should the American taxpayer subsidize expansive social programs for German citizens by footing the bill for Germany’s defense? How can this policy be justified amid skyrocketing tuition costs, healthcare bills, and unemployment resulting from unfair trade deals, including those with Europe? That is the key question, a moral one, that Trump’s critics must address. I suspect it is also this lingering question that is at the heart of why they failed to see value in his foreign policy approach.

It is, moreover, a question that will be asked of the Biden administration. Will U.S. foreign policy be based on the concerns and ambitions of disconnected elites in Washington, Paris, Berlin, or Tehran? Or, will it be based on the values, dreams, and interests of Americans from Little Havana, Brooklyn, and Scranton?

Dr. Amanda J. Rothschild served as a special assistant to former President Donald Trump and his senior national security speechwriter, as well as a senior adviser and member on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s policy planning staff.

Related Content

Related Content