Apologism of dictatorships by individual Westerners (NOT governments)

[Astaroth]

This is something I've been wondering about for a while now.

Why is it so common and popular in the West, especially in recent years, to support and find apologies for dictators in other countries? This is very surprising to me, especially when it comes from people who enjoy the comfortable life and human rights we still enjoy in Europe and the US, despite the NSA and other scandals.

It seems like no matter how bad the reports of human rights violations, crackdowns on protesters or regime critics, stories of torture or abuse or even invasions of foreign countries become, many people are very quick to disagree with the reported facts in one way or another.

This is done in a variety of ways, but here are some popular examples:

"The West is no better, look at situation/scandal X"; "Cracking down on dissenting internet sites makes sense, we do the same with illegal content online"; "We shouldn't get involved in other countries' affairs"; "the "MSM" are trying to paint a bad picture of country X again".

In other words, almost every single situation is turned around into a criticism of the West's perceived hypocrisy, as if two wrongs made a right. Completely ludicrous comparisons are drawn, e.g. Scotland-Crimea, and every more or less neutral newspaper is accused of anti-Russian/Chinese/North Korean/other bias and a hidden agenda to take us to war or to make us hate those dictatorships "for no reason at all". Furthermore, reports from countless independent TV stations, internet sites and newspapers are seen as less reliable than a single, state controlled propaganda channel.

This all reminds me a lot of the classic ideological conflicts a la gay marriage or abortion. But while I can at least *understand* blindly following a single TV channel beyond logic and sense when it comes to an issue that is deeply rooted in the religion of your childhood and your strongly held domestic political views, that does not apply to this situation. I can understand citizens (or at least people whose parents came from those countries) of dictatorships defending their country beyond reason due to brainwashing. But what about those who were born and raised in "the West", based on humanist values? What compels them to think like that? I thought we lived in an age of humanism, but apparently the defense of dictators and human rights violations is chic nowadays.

Now obviously I understand that "the West" is not without its flaws. I understand that Iraq was a violation of human rights and international law. I do not agree with the regime changes orchestrated during the Cold War. And I am critical of the NSA and the general surveillance problem.

But how does that in any way justify putting those actions on one level with the behaviour of dictators, which is simply not comparable in the least? And even if it was, since when do two right make a wrong? Where does this sympathy and support for the oppression of people and the constant human rights violations in other countries stem from?

[Andreius Pretorianus]

it s all political.

Saudi Arabia s policies are ignored by our media,because they are USA s allies.


While Iran/Sirya is constantly attacked trough the media because of their tyranical rulers and their taliban like laws.

Same goes for Ukraine,where nationalists from Right Sector and Svoboda gained power in the Parliment...everyone is quiet about that.While in Grecce,Golden Dawn is attacked 24/7 for their "extreme right" views.

It s all about politics,you can be Stalin reborn,if your country posseses a high interest for NATO and if you are loyal they will close their eyes.If not "DEMOCRACY" will bomb the hell out of you

[PointOfViewGun]

It certainly doesn't justify and the same phenomenon exists for many other countries as well. It's often a way for people to express their animosity for the said country or sometimes the poster. I assume of course you're talking about debates on this forum. Sometimes people even express such views to stir the discussion. I only see it as fair game if it has any connection to the topic or others start to make claims about it.

[Basil II the B.S]

So, hmm, what exactly are you complaining about? Those people not joinining the anti-Russian/anti-Assad bandwagon because that would implicitely include supporting Svoboda and the Neo-Nazi in the first case and Muslim terrorists in the second?

And they are the hypocrites?

Oh man..

[Astaroth]

So, hmm, what exactly are you complaining about? Those people not joinining the anti-Russian/anti-Assad bandwagon because that would implicitely include supporting Svoboda and the Neo-Nazi in the first case and Muslim terrorists in the second?

And they are the hypocrites?

Oh man..

That's exactly what I am talking about. What does one have to do with another? You can easily be critical of dictators and still disapprove of islamists, for example.

I am asking why dictators and their actions are played down, "explained away" and portrayed as normal or acceptable.

Where does this apologism in the West for the actions of dictatorships stem from? That is the ultimate question.

[Basil II the B.S]

That's exactly what I am talking about. What does one have to do with another?

They are currently opposed and in both cases the revolutionary faction is Western supported.

You can easily be critical of dictators and still disapprove of islamists, for example.

Absolutely.
But when Western governments support Islamists and Neo Nazis, any person with a decent sense of morality should at least question this stance.

I am asking why dictators and their actions are played down, "explained away" and portrayed as normal or acceptable.

Where does this apologism in the West for the actions of dictatorships stem from? That is the ultimate question.

Personally speaking, it's a matter of lesser evil. Assad with all his negative qualities is a secular leader. The Western supported faction is at the level of Talibans or worse. Compared to them, Assad is not that bad. It's not apologism, but yes it is down play if compared to a greater evil.

As for Ukraine, the former president Yanukovich would be an infinitely better option compared to Svoboda and his followers. Yes Yanukovich was a Russian puppet, fairly incompetent and whatever else, but the alternative is much worse. In comparison, the Greek Golden Dawn (for example) are violent thugs (and they are) but Svoboda and his buddies are sick psychos. I suggest you to spend some time on the internet watching the activities of Eastern European Neo Nazis, if you dare. And yes, it's them. They are so proud of it that they put it on the internet.

[Astaroth]

I see your point (although I disagree with you, but that's not for this thread), but it still doesn't really address the substance of what I am saying.

I understand that some people see the US as hypocritical, or that sometimes a dictator is seen as a lesser evil.

But how does that relate to outright dismissing, downplaying and excusing any behaviour shown by said dictator? I am talking about clearly verified media reports by non-state entities that are clearly not all US controlled about torture, arrests, crackdowns on protests, deportations, invasions etc. I am not talking about any country in particular and I want to avoid turning this into another Syria or Ukraine thread. Because this really applies to many dictatorships, including Syria, NK, China, Russia, Libya, Egypt etc.

Whenever a media report (again, not a government report by the US) about these atrocities is released, it is immediately greeted with conspiracy claims ("the MSM want to turn us against country X"), charges of US hypocrisy (again, nothing to do with the topic at hand), downplaying of the atrocities, claims that they didn't happen, excuses for why they were necessary etc.

Why does that happen? I still haven't found an answer...

[Basil II the B.S]

I see your point (although I disagree with you, but that's not for this thread), but it still doesn't really address the substance of what I am saying.

I understand that some people see the US as hypocritical, or that sometimes a dictator is seen as a lesser evil.

But how does that relate to outright dismissing, downplaying and excusing any behaviour shown by said dictator? I am talking about clearly verified media reports by non-state entities that are clearly not all US controlled about torture, arrests, crackdowns on protests, deportations, invasions etc. I am not talking about any country in particular and I want to avoid turning this into another Syria or Ukraine thread. Because this really applies to many dictatorships, including Syria, NK, China, Russia, Libya, Egypt etc.

Whenever a media report (again, not a government report by the US) about these atrocities is released, it is immediately greeted with conspiracy claims ("the MSM want to turn us against country X"), charges of US hypocrisy (again, nothing to do with the topic at hand), downplaying of the atrocities, claims that they didn't happen, excuses for why they were necessary etc.

Why does that happen? I still haven't found an answer...

Hmm, I assume it's because media report things in a way that favours their political stance whatever that is. It happens on a national level as well, random example Fox vs Msnbc. On an international scale, this or that national news tends to report or underreport specifical events, thus giving ground to bias criticism. Again, nothing really new here, we are just less used to it because for the first time Russia is actually investing money in a Western type media like RT. I honestly don't see it as any less hypocritical than the standard left vs right that we see it everyday.

It's also happening in a time when most Western goverments have credibility issues, either due to the economic downturn and significant links between governments and the culprits (banks), or other questionable policies.

[Condottiere 40K]

Realpolitik.

The West Germans strung along the Soviets until their empire fell apart; having regained what's pragmatically regainable in Fatherlandness they proceeded to try and suck Russia dry.

The Liberal Left has always been a reservoir of our colonial guilt and expresses itself in cultural relativism; it's healthy in small doses, like clearing the sinuses when the mucous of blind nationalism tends to overwhelm you.

As for Assad the alternatives don't really seem palatable and getting sucked into nation building there doesn't seem worthwhile.

Natural greed and access to Western decadence should moderate Burmese militarism.

[hellheaven1987]

Come on, even West worship dictators themselves, or where do you think all those praises for dictators such as Caesar, Augustus (inspiration of Fascism), Cromwell and Napoleon came from?

[The Despondent Mind]

Compared to them, Assad is not that bad

I actually got that impression about every arab spring state .However the ones that are truly sickening(at least to me) like Saudi Arabia and Jordan , didn't got any heat from it .

[Astaroth]

Yes, but again, how does it explain the apologist take on what dictators do? I can understand criticism of the NSA, I can understand criticising America or its foreign policy, or even its perceived hypocrisy. I can also understand people who live in de-facto dictatorships (Russia, Syria, NK, China) defending their country against foreigners in debates. But what I cannot understand is people from the West defending dictatorships when they violate human rights, invade other countries, crack down on their people and the likes.

It's as if everything the Western fairly neutral (because mostly not-state owned) media say is taken under great scrutiny and ridiculed, whereas everything state-sponsored (!) dictatorship media publish is cited as gospel.

[hellheaven1987]

But what I cannot understand is people from the West defending dictatorships when they violate human rights, invade other countries, crack down on their people and the likes.

Because it is easier to use words instead force.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yes, but again, how does it explain the apologist take on what dictators do? I can understand criticism of the NSA, I can understand criticising America or its foreign policy, or even its perceived hypocrisy. I can also understand people who live in de-facto dictatorships (Russia, Syria, NK, China) defending their country against foreigners in debates. But what I cannot understand is people from the West defending dictatorships when they violate human rights, invade other countries, crack down on their people and the likes.

Because the US regularly does all of that.

It's as if everything the Western fairly neutral (because mostly not-state owned) media say is taken under great scrutiny and ridiculed, whereas everything state-sponsored (!) dictatorship media publish is cited as gospel.

And because things aren't black and white but various shades of gray.
You admitted yourself there's quite a lot wrong with the West these days so I don't get your outrage at this point. All they do is showing that Russia or Syria are either better than many Western allies or not that different from certain Western countries themselves.

[Garbarsardar]

I think that the crucial issue is that "we" (and this "we" has multiple instances) will always use "us" as a yardstick to which others are eternally compared. A dictator is understandable to the degree where his behaviour is exactly what is expected from a country that cannot be measured towards ours.

Conflicts are treated like developmental disorders of an infancy that will inevitably lead to our state of evolution.

A dictatorship is good because it confirms our superiority, and given our superiority, easily explainable. That, for some.

For others, the "mighty sword" of one man, is exactly the one they themselves fantasizing about wielding, and with one mighty stroke, cleanse our society for minor or major plagues: neighbours that park in our driveway, and drug dealers, moaners and haters.

[Slydessertfox]

What dictatorship does the West play down?

I don't think he's talking about the west in general, but individuals that live in the west (that seem to crop up aplenty on this site).

I actually got that impression about every arab spring state .

Except Tunisia...

[spanish_emperor]

All dictatorships are equal, some are just more equal than others


Edit: on a serious note, they seem to be critical of the US simply because they are suspicious of US intentions based on the past and have a general distrust of the US because of this. They distrust US media sources criticizing other countries authoritarian state simply because it comes from the US: they care less if the information is true or not. The same happens here when people cite Voice of Russia, Press TV, etc but when someone cites AlJazeera they treat them as objective and trustworthy even though it is a state-owned station like the others.

It is the same with conspiracy theorists: they will gladly cite you a Washington Post or New York Times newspaper to support their points but if the same newspaper comes out with something questioning their views they will claim you should use a more trustworthy source.

[General Mosh]

For the record, I generally agree with what Astaroth said here, but claiming the West does not support dictators is blatantly denying the facts.

[Euphoric]

International relations have nothing to do with the morality of an action, only whether or not it benefits a particular party. A politician's primary obligation is to benefit his or her self, their community, and their country. This generally overrides his or her political values. If a dictatorship works in the interest of his or her country, then having a relationship with a dictator or even sponsoring a dictatorship is seen as acceptable.

This quote succinctly describes international relations in the last century:

"We have no permanent allies or enemies, only permanent interests."

[mishkin]

I think Astaroth is not asking about governments/politicians supporting dictatorships, but to western people supporting or ignoring dictatorships. (Garb pointed to a couple of posible causes, and someone else mentioned the influence of the media)