I've spent a lot of energy recently talking about the foreign policy changes that face the Bush Administration in Darfur, Sudan. If one takes a deeper look at the BushCo foreign policy, one begins to understand that it is coherent and consistent in name only. Anne Applebaum shares the plight of Ilyas Akhmadov, formerly the "foreign minister" of an elected, moderate, separatist Chechen government." Akhmadov's request for asylum and the conflict between the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department offer a window into the self-absorbed manner in which we deal with "small" countries and the issues they face as they struggle to find their identity
What interests me, though, is not some inside-the-Beltway battle for influence between DHS and the State Department but rather what this strange tale says about how cavalierly we use our own power, in Chechnya and anywhere else not on the front pages. We may think of these places as insignificant, but the feeling is not mutual. On the contrary, every nation in the world considers its relationship with the United States to be one of its most important. Around the world, the words of the U.S. government carry extra weight. Phrases from the DHS appeal will be quoted in the Russian media, used in other court cases and cited as a precedent: "Look, the U.S. government thinks Akhmadov is a terrorist"; or "Look, the U.S. government is dumping moderate Chechens"; or "Look, the U.S. government doesn't care anymore about human rights."
It has been apparent for some time that a large part of the problem we have faced in Iraq can be laid to simple arrogance- the belief that superior firepower means never having to say that you're sorry. After all, bombing a country into submission sure beats the hell out of having to deal with them where they live. The problem with this attitude is that once you have bombed your enemy into submission, you then have to figure out how to put the pieces back together. As we've discovered in Iraq, this can be a tough and costly sell when those you've vanquished despise everything you stand for.
BushCo's steamroller approach to foreign policy is fine if you are trying to divide and conquer. Diplomacy, though, is all about subtlety and shades of grey, something sadly lacking in the current Administration's foreign policy. What our interest in seeing that Akmadhov is deported is beyond me. If the US government has reason to believe that deportation may result in the death of Akhmadov, is there not an implied responsibility to refrain from what will be an implicit death sentence?
There are many explanations for the DHS appeal: Perhaps it reflects DHS contacts with Russian security, or a White House attempt to curry favor with the Russian leadership, or even simple ignorance. None is sufficient. We may not have the national energy to do anything about Chechnya or the national attention span even to care much about what happens there, but at least we should have the national decency to treat Chechens who are trying to achieve peace in their country with consistency. For that reason, if for no other, Tom Ridge, the secretary of homeland security, should make clear that the U.S. government keeps its word, and withdraw this embarrassing appeal immediately.
Indeed....
