Originally published on the CGS blog on February 2, 2015.
He will be remembered…for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths.
So said British Prime Minister David Cameron following the death of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah on January 24th. These words were spoken of a man whose kingdom is widely lambasted for its draconian justice system, marginalization of women, suppression of dissent, and turning a blind eye to terrorist funding. How could Cameron or other world leaders praise someone whose policies stand at such odds with their own?
The answer lies in resolving a fundamental dilemma of diplomacy in a time when liberal democracy has not reached every nation, but cooperation is required to achieve mutual and global goals. If we make alliances with dictators, are we supporting their crimes? If we shun them as criminals, will we suffer the consequences of ignoring our self-interest while leaving the oppressed to suffer?
How do we resolve the conflict between two seemingly bad choices?
Perhaps the best way to think of diplomatic relationships is as a spectrum of possibilities rather than as an on/off binary. Sometimes allies can disagree and enemies can find common cause. Sometimes countries share common interest in one policy area but have divergent needs in another. There are many possible ways for countries to interact.
Our first attempt to resolve the dilemma comes in realizing that despite claims that Western leaders are hypocrites for supporting Abdullah, this sort of rhetoric fails to account for the varieties of international relations and extent to which any of those relations endorse a particular regime. Maintaining an embassy in a foreign capital is a basic feature of recognizing sovereignty. Most aid to developing countries recognizes those countries’ needs, but doesn’t support a government’s specific actions.
Closer alliances may or may not approach endorsement depending on the how close the relationship is, awareness of the specifics, how invested the ally is in the unacceptable policy, etc. There are certainly bridges too far: China’s direct involvement in lining the pockets of genocidal regimes in Africa, for instance, or its direct support for North Korea. But much simpler things can involve responsibility, like how the United States stood by and watched as the Ben Ali regime milked Tunisia dry and then supported Ben Ali as an uprising occurred.
With a variety of international relations, then, we see many potential ways to interact with illiberal regimes, but this still leaves quite a bit of gray area. Perhaps it’s better to just stay away.
But perhaps not.
By maintaining alliances with despots, we gain something that we wouldn’t have by keeping our distance: the opportunity to pressure these allies to change their backwards policies. Engagement requires long-term commitment at the highest levels of government, radiating out through various diplomatic channels and civil society. But past successes indicate that engagement can produce positive outcomes. In the long term, the possibility of constitutional change is on the table; in the shorter term, we have the opportunity to stop heinous actions or improve unjust laws.
Furthermore, by forming alliances between democracies and autocracies, we can work with these allies to achieve global priorities and involve them ever more deeply in global society. As that involvement increases, it becomes more difficult for them to ignore the body of international law to which they have become party.
In the end, we solve the dictator diplomacy dilemma by treating it as an opportunity. Sometimes in these alliances, all we achieve are self-serving goals like access to natural resources. But diplomacy with dictatorships encourages those regimes to get ever more entangled in the global society that will help protect and empower the citizens they are marginalizing.
